Re: 10646 vs. unicode

[Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxx>]

> I have been alerted to the possibility that an Internet standard
> may in some fashion choose 10646 over Unicode. I think this would be a
> major mistake, for the following reasons:
> 
> 	1) If at all possible, RFC's should remain neutral on the issue.
> 	It is tricky enough to handle internationalization without network
> 	standards making premature choices that might interfere with
> 	a different international code set that some people might
> 	need to use.

Well, I think there is no chance that RFCs would specify a
vendor defined character set, when an ISO standard covering the same
subject is available. The 10646 vs. UNICODE is the coice between de
jure standards and some specification which you cannot even call
a de facto standard - for how long has there been UNICODE equipment
on the market, and what market share has it got by now?

People are working on ISO 10646 implementation in email, I have not
yet seen UNICODE being employed there. 

Keld Simonsen