From keld@dkuug.dk Sat Feb 26 17:48:55 1994
Received: by dkuug.dk id AA03423
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for i18n@dkuug.dk); Sat, 26 Feb 1994 16:48:55 +0100
Message-Id: <199402261548.AA03423@dkuug.dk>
From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 16:48:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: ALB@immedia.ca
       "(i18n.203) Multiscript Ordering -- Survey on a fundamental issue" (Feb 25, 20:56)
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mnemonic-Intro: 29
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
To: ALB@immedia.ca, i18n@dkuug.dk, iso10646@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu,
        rtfq-forum@crim.ca, sc22wg20@dkuug.dk, tc304@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (i18n.203) Multiscript Ordering -- Survey on a fundamental issue
Cc: bealle@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com, cpwg-mail@revcan.rct.ca,
        umavs@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com

ALB@immedia.ca writes:

> ----------
> I would like to have as many people state their preference on the following:
> 
> 1) Is it acceptable, in an eventual international standard on multiscript
>    ordering, to constrain applications to separate different scripts
>    (ex.: Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Han, Thai, Arabic, Hebrew, and so on) into
>    different fields to be compared, so that only one script set would be
>    processed at a time?

I believe that the ISO project, for which you are an editor, concerns
string ordering of arbitrary ISO 10646-1 character strings, and
you should thus not restrict the contents of the 10646 encoded
string.

Keld