Bert raises a good point.
Supporting a full set of ISO 10646 NCRs for the various "charset" encodings
will require many large tables:
ISO-10646 to SJIS (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to JIS (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to EUC-JP (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to GB (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to HZ (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to Big5 (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to CNS (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to KSC7 (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to KSC8 (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to ISO-8859-2 (and vice versa)
...
ISO-10646 to ISO-8859-10 (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to KOI8 (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to MacRoman (and vice versa)
ISO-10646 to MacCentralEuropean (and vice versa)
etc.
This is OK, as long as supporting NCRs > 255 is NOT required and FULL
conformance is attained by supporting ISO 8859-1 NCRs. (But if a browser
supports NCRs > 255, then they map to ISO 10646.)
Otherwise we are requiring a lot of additional resources to support a
feature that most people on this list have been saying will be rarely used.
Users still want browsers to run well on resource limited systems, so
requiring this for full conformance would be bad.
-- Bob Jung bobj@netscape.com +1 415 528-2688, fax +1 415 528-4122 Netscape Communications Corp. 501 E. Middlefield Mtn View, CA 94041