RE: ISO-10646-UCS-x aliases

[Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>]

Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
>> Anyway, you can use the UTF-* names instead of the above.
>
>that would not refer to the ISO standard, but to Unicode
> in stead. There are subtle differences in doing that.

RFC 3629 now standardizes UTF-8 as the Unicode-defined encoding of the
characters defined by ISO 10646.  Hopefully, that will help put to rest
those old sterile squabbles about Unicode vs 10646.

Respecting UTF-16 vs ISO-10646-UCS-2 however, there is a real difference,
the latter being restricted to U+FFFF.  But who wants to do that today
anyway?

-- 
François