W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > April 1997

Re: Comments on 31 March spec

From: Murata Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:14:48 +0900
Message-Id: <9704100714.AA01118@lute.apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Michael Sperberg-McQueen writes:
>Tim Bray and I have recently heard heard this wish from others as well.
>In general, I think specifying clearly what is intended is a good
>idea; in this particular case, it's not clear to me which version of
>10646 and which version of Unicode should be specified.  In principle,
>it seems to me that it would be best if:
>  - we could specify the most recent version of each standard
>  - we could refer both to ISO 10646 and to Unicode
>  - the versions of 10646 and Unicode to which we refer were
>identical in technical content

ISO/IEC 10646 (1993) and Unicode 1.1 are identical.

ISO/IEC 10646 with AM 1 through 5 added is identical to Unicode 2.0.

So, we should clearly state that XML references to ISO/IEC 10646 with AM 1 through 5 added.

Murata Makoto writes:
>We should clarify which ISO 10646 and which Unicode.  Before or after DAM9 
>(Draft Ammendment 9)?  This DAM *changes* codes for Hangul characters and 
>introduce many new characters.

I made a mistake here.  "DAM9" shold be "AM 5".

Murata, Makoto
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: 044-812-7230   Fax: 044-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
Received on Thursday, 10 April 1997 03:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:25 UTC