Re: ISO/IEC 10646 as Document Character Set

Dan Connolly (
Mon, 1 May 95 01:22:48 EDT

Glenn Adams writes:
> 2. the 2.0 spec as an RFC will the first official spec as a standard [as
> far as I'm aware]; therefore, it is very important to not artificially
> limit its applicability, as would be the case of it goes out using 8859-1
> as the doc charset.

Good point.

OK, here's the real reason I don't want to put ISO10646 in the SGML decl
for 2.0: I don't know how to do it, and I don't have tools to test it.

The SP parser by James Clark is almost certainly the answer to both
of these problems, but there's a third: I don't have time to mess with

This is all clearly a cop-out, but here's a fourth reason: we don't
need it. As everyone has pointed out, ISO8859-1 and ISO10646 are
completely consistent, and there's no problem upgrading. Nothing specified
in the 2.0 spec (or used in most browsers) requires anything more than

So the main reason I resist the change is that this is very late in
the release cycle for this sort of thing. There just isn't enough
"burn in time" on this idea. Heck: the dang thing is in last call, after

For example: imagine the surprise of all the folks out there happily
using SGMLS on their HTML files to -- god bless them -- validate their
HTML. They download the final, released standard public text, and
SGMLS craps out cuz it doesn't grok the document character
set. Sadness.

ISO10646 all in good time.