Re: 10646 & Unicode

Yes, Keld's statement is completely inaccurate.

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
=E2=96=BA =E0=A4=B6=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=B7=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=A6=
=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=9A=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=9B=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AA=E0=
=A4=B0=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=9C=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=AE=E0=A5=8D =E2=97=84

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, 2004 Jan 05 17:15
Subject: 10646 & Unicode


>
> Keld J=C3=B8rn Simonsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 10646, not unicode, ... (as the technical differences are almost
> > negligible).
>
> I'm under the impression that the technical differences are quite great=
,
> because Unicode includes a great deal of technical information that is
> absent from 10646 (but whatever does exist in 10646 is identical with o=
r
> at least compatible with Unicode).
>
> I haven't seen 10646 (it's too expensive), but does it include much mor=
e
> than a code chart and specs for UTF-8 and UTF-16?  Unicode includes a
> lot of character properties and algorithms for doing useful things base=
d
> on those properties.  See sections C.4 and C.7 of the Unicode standard:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/appC.pdf
>
> Does 10646 include normalization forms (NFC, etc)?  Those are likely to
> be important in any effort to use the UCS in identifiers (like email
> addresses and web links).  Does 10646 include case folding data?  That
> is needed in any effort to use the UCS in case-insensitive identifiers.
>
> AMC
>