RE: [idn] Re: alpha v0.3

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 20:17 02.02.00 +0000, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>At 18:26 02-02-00 , Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> >
> >We should refer to the properties characters have
> >in Unicode 3.0.0, rather than any older version.
>
>Disagree.
>
>Existing IETF standards are oriented to ISO 10646
>already.   As this is an IETF activity, we should
>continue to reference ISO 10646 rather than any
>version of UNICODE.  If the differences are as
>minor as you indicate, then this ought not bother
>you.  If the differences are significant, than
>to reference UNICODE would be to increase probability
>of issues in interworking with existing IETF standards.
The sticky issue is, of course, that if we want to depend on case folding 
behaviour, this is not included (I believe; please correct me!) in the ISO 
standard, and is indeed only "informative" in the UNICODE documentation.

Last I heard, ISO 10646 and Unicode are completely harmonized in the things 
they both provide, but Unicode provides things that aren't included in ISO 
10646.

But referring to charactes by ISO 10646 code positions is IMHO uncontroversial.

                           Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no