- From: Luc Rooijakkers <lwj@cs.kun.nl>
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1993 22:10:58 +0100
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald.t.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
Harald writes: > I am told that someone managed to get UTF-2 defined in the > soon-to-be-published ISO 9945-2 standard (POSIX part 2: Shells and tools, > which is also published as IEEE 1003.2) > > Can anyone confirm/deny this? > I'm sure we know the advantages of sticking with a defined standard if > there is one.... > > (If we go for the private-use version of Otha's suggestion, this would > affect only the encoding method, not the basic character set) Note, however, that the encoding space available for extensions is rather limited if you want to remain seriously compatible with UTF-2. See the NET-TEXT message and other recent messages for details. Since we are asking standard questions, does anyone know the 2022 sequence to switch into UCS (16 bit, 32 bit or any other encoding)? Someone told me that this has been assigned. -- Luc Rooijakkers Internet: lwj@cs.kun.nl SPC Company, the Netherlands UUCP: uunet!cs.kun.nl!lwj --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 2 August 1993 14:11:38 UTC