🚀 go-pugleaf

glenn@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Glenn A. Adams) writes:

>I find it extremely doubtful that it "will be normatively defined."
>Especially, since UTF-1 is only an informative annex.  I would expect
>other UTF-* to also be informative, and not normative.

>Of course, a usage profile might wish to make it normative, but that would be
>outside the scope of 10646.

Ok, ISO 10646 defines only a table that assigns characters to numbers.
But why don't you start to develop a new normative ISO standard that
defines UTF-2? This will be a very useful ISO standard. Call it
"Single and multiple octett encoding of UCS compatible with ISO 646 IRV"
or give it a similar ISO typical title and start the process.
I believe that many people are waiting on a standard that defines what
will be the future replacement of ASCII text files. UTF-2 seems to
be promising, so why not making an ISO standard? Do all ISO standards
(e.g. ISO 2022) have to be complex and difficult to implement? :-)

This standard could also define for all times the problem of the end of
line control codes: LF or CR LF or only CR or NL or any of the new
Unicode codes?

Markus

-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
----- Anyone participating in the use of MS-DOS, Heroin or Cocaine is -----
---- simply not getting the most out of life possible. (Brian Downing) ----