I have had the very distinct impression that Unicode had a preference for
16-bit encoding to the exclusion of the 4-octet UCS-4 form of ISO/IEC
10646-1:1993. I verified that UCS-4 appears to be excluded from the
conformance clause of Unicode 2.0. However, what if I chose to implement
the UCS-4 form of 10646 and implemented everything else but this in
conformance to the Unicode conformance statements (character properties,
bi-di, etc.), and my implementation was able to exchange data in
UCS-2/UTF-16 and the UCS-4 forms? Is this implementation conformant to
Unicode 2.0? I interpret that this implementation is not conformant to
Unicode 2.0. My question is why should not the UCS-4 form be included as a
conformant form in Unicode? As we move to encoding characters into planes 1
and beyond, I think that it makes good sense to add the UCS-4 form as
conformant to Unicode (3.0).
Ed Hart
Edwin F. Hart
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723-6099
+1-240-228-6926 (from Washington, DC area)
+1-443-778-6926 (from Baltimore area)
+1-240-228-1093 (fax)
edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu <mailto:edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT