What Greg wrote is also not true for what NETF decided.
NETF decided to use 10646 compaction method 5, not latin-1.
I wonder if the third example (NSFnet) was hypothetical too.
Just for clarification, these were all hypotheticals! Yikes, I should
use made-up communities of users in the future to go with my made-up
Is ISO 2022 for Japanese a subset of ISO 10646? If so, I have no
problem listing is as a "regional subset" of the "full" character set.
If you send japanese, you can send it in ISO 10646, and ISO 2022, but
the same implementation will show both. This is the interoperability
problem I'm trying to address.