On Jun 25, 2006, at 12:56 PM, brad tilley wrote:

> Please forgive my ignorance.
>
> Is m17n a type of unicode? http://unicode.org makes no mention of it
> that I can see. And http://m17n.org make no mention of unicode. Why is
> this? In general terms, I think m17n is a type of unicode. Is there a
> political disagreement between them or a technical one?
>
> I ask this because I understand that future versions of Ruby will use
> m17n to address issues that others use unicode to address. Could  
> someone
> who understands this take the time to explain the differences?
>
> Thank you,
> Brad
>
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>

Unicode says, lets make ONE universal character set and map all our  
strings into it.

m17n says not every language is the same, not every concept of a  
character is the same, let's support all the languages and character  
sets we can.

Ruby's m17n will have support for Unicode, but it will be an option  
for an  encoding, not the only encoding.