Re: Charset "iso-10646-1"

From: Terje Bless (link@pobox.com)
Date: Fri, Aug 31 2001

  • Next message: Terje Bless: "Re: validators hang when referred from private address space"

    Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:14:37 +0200
    From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
    To: www-validator@w3.org
    Message-ID: <20010831220754-r01010800-49fc4d26-0910-010c@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Charset "iso-10646-1"
    
    On 01.09.01 at 01:22, Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org> wrote:
    
    >Terje Bless <link@pobox.com> wrote:
    >
    >> 1. ISO-10646-1, aka. "Unicode" specifies a set of characters. It does
    >>    not specify how to encode them into bits and bytes in your document.
    >
    >That's somewhat misleading.  Both ISO/IEC 10646-1 and the Unicode
    >Standard do specify how to encode UCS into UCS Transformation formats,
    >such as UTF-16 and UTF-8.
    
    Right. I should probably have said "ISO-10646-1 isn't specific enough" or
    something to that effect. Thanks!
    
    BTW, is the term "Transformation Format" chosen to avoid the muddled
    history of "charset" and related terms? What is the need to differentiate
    it from a "Character Encoding" (I assume there is a specific need)?
    
    
    
    [ That's what I get for trying to one-up Martin on his home turf.   ]
    [ What /was/ I thinking. Note to self: next time, leave it to those ]
    [ who know what they are talking about. :-)                         ]