From owner-sc22wg5 Fri Sep 6 10:44:38 2002 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (smtp-1.star.net.uk [212.125.75.70]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id KAA98248 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:44:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from malcolm@brackley.nag.co.uk) Received: (qmail 19675 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2002 08:45:36 -0000 Received: from nagmx1.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.231.145.242) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 08:45:36 -0000 Received: from brackley.nag.co.uk (brackley.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.21]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04474 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:45:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from malcolm@localhost) by brackley.nag.co.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g868l2m76671 for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:47:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from malcolm) From: Malcolm Cohen Message-Id: <200209060847.g868l2m76671@brackley.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2549) ISO 10646 and Unicode To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:47:02 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I said: >UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 are not defined by ISO 10646. >They are defined by the Unicode consortium. Bob Corbett has kindly pointed out that I got this wrong. UTF-16 is of course defined by both. And the differences between 10646 and Unicode for the UTF-8 definition were minor and have in any case been eliminated in the latest (3.0.2) version of Unicode. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)