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. :-)                         ]

Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 16:08:47 UTC