ISO 10646

[erik@xxxxxxxxx (Erik M. van der Poel)]

> # But it is probably equally unacceptable to mandate
> # support for all of the world's characters in the RFC's conformance
> # clause. Would any American vendors take such an RFC seriously?
> 
> Why would it be difficult to support "all of" ISO-10646?
> The conversion from the sender's character set to ISO-10646 should be
> very straight forward.

Oh, I *agree*! It *is* very straightforward, but some people on this
list don't seem to think we can mandate 10646. I would love to be
proved wrong.


Erik