Re: ISO/IEC 10646 as Document Character Set

Fri, 5 May 95 19:03:02 EDT

Dutifully registering opinions on several points that have been raised
over the last few days:

I understand that the idea of HTML 2.0 is to describe existing
practice, but I don't believe that it is completely pure in this
regard -- certainly not pure enough to make this objective
automatically prevail over any other objective.

If the intention is to modularize additions to 2.0 so that 2.1 is 2.0
plus added language, then it is especially important that the 2.0
language on this subject either go ahead and say that the character
set is 10646 or that it be worded in such a way that it will continue
to be appropriate when 10646 gets added. I think that the former
course is cleaner and easier.

If the SGML character set is declared to be 10646, then ipso facto the
use of characters from that set will not cause an SGML markup error
(no matter how one interprets 8879 on the definition of "reportable
markup errors").

Based on the discussion so far, I am inclined to agree with Glenn's

| 1. 10646 is the doc charset
| 2. an HTML 2.0 application is expected to support those graphic characters
| which comprise the selected subset of 10646 consisting of the collections:
| 1 BASIC LATIN 0020 - 007E
| 3. by "support" is meant being capable of displaying a suitable rendition
| of a graphic character.


Jon Bosak, Novell Corporate Publishing Services
2180 Fortune Drive, San Jose, CA 95131 Fax: 408 577 5020
A sponsor of the Davenport Group (
The Library is a sphere whose consummate center is any hexagon, and
whose circumference is inaccessible. -- Jorge Luis Borges