Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wrdis01!nstn.ns.ca!uupsi!sunic!sics.se!ifi!enag From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Newsgroups: comp.std.internat Subject: Re: universality of Latin-1 Message-ID: Date: 18 Apr 91 14:41:21 GMT References: <1110@sranha.sra.co.jp> <1991Apr10.172756.4991@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Apr12.001902.9260@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu>,<1991Apr12.123302.17817@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Apr14.025052.3137@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> Sender: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu's message of 14 Apr 91 02: 50:52 GMT Dimitri, I'm sure we all need your angry comments to help us reach a consensus in this admittedly delicate matter. Unicode is not the answer. ISO DIS 10646 is not the answer. As I see it, it's too early for an answer. However, we need a reference standard, just like we needed a reference standard for the Latin script, and that's ISO 6937-2. I think ISO DIS 10646 will make a great reference standard due to its clean design, but will not make it into production use due to its currently lacking implementation of that design, and it may never see widespread use except as an interchange standard. I don't think that's bad at all. Let's try to fix the problem, not try to hide behind the pretention that the _other_ party's problems are sufficiently bigger than ours. And please remember that we're dealing with international politics and diplomacy in ISO DIS 10646, while Unicode is pretty much free of that. This is a problem we can't fix. -- [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway