RE: UTF-2 and standardization

[Luc Rooijakkers <lwj@cs.kun.nl>]

Harald writes:

> I am told that someone managed to get UTF-2 defined in the
> soon-to-be-published ISO 9945-2 standard (POSIX part 2: Shells and tools,
> which is also published as IEEE 1003.2)
> 
> Can anyone confirm/deny this?
> I'm sure we know the advantages of sticking with a defined standard if
> there is one....
> 
> (If we go for the private-use version of Otha's suggestion, this would
> affect only the encoding method, not the basic character set)

Note, however, that the encoding space available for extensions is
rather limited if you want to remain seriously compatible with UTF-2.
See the NET-TEXT message and other recent messages for details.

Since we are asking standard questions, does anyone know the 2022 sequence
to switch into UCS (16 bit, 32 bit or any other encoding)? Someone
told me that this has been assigned.

--
Luc Rooijakkers                                 Internet: lwj@cs.kun.nl
SPC Company, the Netherlands                    UUCP: uunet!cs.kun.nl!lwj