Re: 10646 & Unicode

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:45:29AM +0200, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>=20
> This is the most important difference, and it relegates ISO standards t=
o
> secondary importance vis-=E0-vis industry standards, such as Unicode an=
d many
> others, that are freely available.

You mean that the problem about 10646 not neing freely available is
the most important problem? (it was not fully clear from your
statement).  Actually there is a survey going on in ISO about this issue
at this time. And there are other means to make 10646 freely available,
that could be pursued.


> ISO should be aware of this, because it was discussed many times, but t=
hey
> do not do anything about it.=20

Yes, ISO is a bit hard to get moved on this issue, but maybe we can rock
the boat.

Best regards
keld

> Jony
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]=20
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam M. Costello
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:15 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: 10646 & Unicode
>=20
> ..
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I haven't seen 10646 (it's too expensive),=20
> ...
>=20
>=20
> > AMC
> >=20
>=20
>=20