- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:40 -0800
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 2:29 AM +0900 12/1/00, Martin J. Duerst wrote: >There is no problem with UCS-2 and UCS-4. The UCS is a set >(in the math sense) of characters, each with a number associated. >There is only one UCS. Just saying 'UCS', there are no assumptions whatsoever >about representation (UCS-2 and UCS-4 are both 'charset' labels), and >no assumptions about subsetting (UCS-2 can be used, in the right context, >to denote a certain subset of the UCS). So I don't see any problem. I do. :-) "Non-Unicode" is not specific enough to prevent confusion, as this discussion has shown. Does it mean: - all charsets except UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16BE, and UTF-16LE - all charsets except UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, UCS-2, UCS-4 - all charsets that are not defined by the Unicode Consortium in some version of the Unicode Standard - something else --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 13:30:49 UTC