RE: Unicode references

Sorry, Martin!  I meant Unicode 4.0.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:06 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org; w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Unicode references
> 
> Hello Ashok,
> 
> Below, you write:
> 
> "There was a feeling that Unicode was too new and as yet not widely
> implemented."
> 
> I very much hope you and your WGs didn't really mean that.
> Can you please clarify?
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> At 08:28 03/10/16 -0700, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> 
> >In their review of the F&O document the I18N WG asked that the
references
> >to Unicode be changed to Unicode 4.0.and to change the reference to
case
> >mapping to Annexure #15 of Unicode 4.0 and the normalization forms
> defined
> >in Unicode 4.0. See <file://Also
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-
> comments/2003Jul/0105.html>Al
> >so
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jul/0105.htm
l
> >and
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-
> comments/2003Jul/0106.html>h
>
>ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jul/0106.html
> >
> >The XML Schema WG asked that the references to Unicode be consistent.
See
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-
> comments/2003Aug/0003.html>h
>
>ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0003.html
> >
> >This was discussed in the joint WG meeting in Toronto.  There was a
> >feeling that Unicode was too new and as yet not widely implemented.
> There
> >was also the argument for consistency.  Thus, it was decided that the
F&O
> >would refer to the XML standard, since that is what the spec is based
on,
> >and be consistent with it.
> >
> >All the best, Ashok
>

Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 07:44:15 UTC