Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote: > Given the exact correspondence between them, would anything be broken as far > as you know if all references to ISO 10646 within the XML 1.0 spec were to be > replaced by references to Unicode? In other words, is there any technical > reason at all why ISO 10646 was chosen over Unicode as the defining document > for character sets, There can't be, since everything prescribed by 10646, with the narrow exception of the subset-declaring ESCape sequences, which are not used by XML (or much of anyone else AFAIK), is also prescribed by Unicode. > or was it purely a political decision? "Political" is technically correct, but has the wrong flavor. As I said, international standards tend to be more stable than commercial ones, though in this case there is no such difference. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
|
