On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, John Max Skaller wrote:

> > This view seems extreme to me.  Certainly the Java type system has faults --
> > lack of generics being one, lack of enumerated types another, and various
> > other points as well.  But surely Unicode is a useful de facto standard?
> 
> 	No. Unicode was abandoned years ago: there is an 'offical'
> ISO Standard: ISO-10646. There are 2^31 code points, unlike
> Unicode's 2^16, which is already barely adequate. ISO C and ISO C++
> support ISO-10646. Linux runs ISO-10646 (via UTF-8).

What are you calling 'Unicode' ?  For me it is the 'Unicode standard'
from the 'Unicode consortium' (http://www.unicode.org/), and it doesn't
seem like it was abandoned. Actually, it is in sync with ISO/IEC 10646
as for the character set.

See for instance:
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/unicode_iso.html


-- 
  Alain Frisch