Re: Acquiring DIS 10646

Quote/Cytat - Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> (Sat 03 Oct 2015 08:00:12
PM CEST):

> Sean Leonard wrote:
>
>> What I understand is that Draft 1 got shot down because it was at
>> variance with the nascent Unicode effort;
>
> If I remember correctly, Draft 1 looked a lot like an updated and
> expanded version of ISO 2022, much more than it did like today's
> Unicode/10646.

Rob Pike, Ken Thompson
Hello World

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/utf.html

The draft of ISO 10646 was not very attractive to us. It defined a
sparse set of 32-bit characters, which would be hard to implement and
have punitive storage requirements. Also, the draft attempted to
mollify national interests by allocating 16-bit subspaces to national
committees to partition individually. The suggested mode of use was to
‘‘flip’’ between separate national standards to implement the
international standard.

Regards

Janusz

-- 
Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień -  Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra  
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
jsbien@uw.edu.pl, jsbien@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/