- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 04:40:35 +0900
- To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 00/11/30 10:30 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >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. 'non-unicode' is not part of the wording suggested. >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 What we need is all charsets that are defined based on UCS. That would include any RACE/LACE/..., if they every get defined as a charset, and is completely independent of who defines it. Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 14:54:32 UTC