On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:57:34PM +0000, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> MK> What we are trying to establish is the exact meaning that UNICODE
> MK> ought to have - that is, if it can have one at all.
>
> In the Unix-like world, the term ``UTF-8'' has been used quite
> consistently, and most documentation avoids using Unicode for a disk
> format (using it for the consortium, er., the Consortium, the
> character repertoire and, when useful, for the coded character set).
>
> The Unix-like public is used to thinking of UTF-8 as the format in
> which Unicode text is saved on disk, and ``UTF-8 (Unicode)'' or
> perhaps ``Unicode (UTF-8)'' should be the preferred user-interface
> item.
I would rather recommend that you write ISO 10646 UTF-8 as the
ISO standard is a standard in many countries while Unicode is not.
Kind regards
keld
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 11:25:22 EST