From: Florian Weimer (fw@deneb.enyo.de)
Date: Tue May 01 2001 - 03:31:51 CDT
kai-perl6-all@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> > > But there is to be no recommended normalization.
> >
> > Is this a definite statement?
>
> It's false, in any case. Unicode *does* have a recommended normalization
> format for this type of application, normalization form C, and it is
> rather unlikely for anyone to actually use a different one - and in any
> case, this one's mentioned at various places in the IDN drafts.
I think Charles Lindsey referred to the USEFOR draft, which won't
mandate normalization.
> > This is a problem with the Unicode Standard and even ISO 10646: No
> > stable references, everything is still evolving.
>
> Actually, this is also at least a highly misleading statement. Unicode and
> 10646 are a *lot* less moving than your typical IETF standard.
The Unicode Technical Reports which describe normalization and the
like are changing more rapidly than the typical IETF standard. The
Unicode character repertoire is being augmented continually.
(STD documents aren't update very often, are they?)