Then, should we profile 10646 as
The algorithm for choosing the glyph to be displayed is too elaborate to be
coded into a MIME charset name. It shouldn't be called simply ISO-10646,
but any unique suffix should work. Maybe ISO-10646-RFC-XXXX, where XXXX is
the RFC number. Then if someone comes up with a better algorithm, he/she
can publish it with a different charset name.
As for your other comments:
Most of the people on this list don't know enough to judge whether your
complaints have merit. Besides yourself, those who do claim to have the
expertise seem to disagree with you. The rest of us simply aren't in a
position to decide which group is right.
This conversation can serve no further purpose. Goodbye.