Tim Bray wrote: So, you gave up on technical points. OK. > Which is to say, for the benefit of those who have not had to > internalize the complicated world of standardization and > internationalization: Mr. Ohta's point of view represents the position > of a tiny minority; huge swathes of widely-deployed standards and > technology rely totally on 10646/Unicode, and they tend to work well, > and they tend to deliver high-quality experiences to their users, > including Japanese users. -Tim I know. Read RFC1815. I wrote it to demonstrate Unicode usable for some local purpose, though it is unrelated to internationalization. As a random collection of local characters, Unicode, in theory, works in any such local environment including Japanese one. However, people with established existing local schemes, including Japanese, keep using them, because Unicode is no better and the existing local schemes are more efficient. There is no point to some form of local version of Unicode, as we must specify which local version we are using. RFC1815 gives examples of such local versions. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf