"John.Cowan" <xxxxxx@reutershealth.com> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:
>
>> Regardless, I must say that I think this *must* take a back seat to my
>> primary goal:
>>
>> Keep standardization from screwing up the efforts of people who do
>> want to implement Unicode correctly.
>
> I'll repeat myself once:
>
> The claim that correct implementation of Unicode requires string<?
> and friends to implement the UCA is false.  The Unicode Standard
> does not incorporate the UCA.  Even when the UCA is implemented, it
> need not be the only or the most primitive kind of collation
> available.

I'm referring to all the associate Unicode-related standards as well.
Please don't standardize non-compliance with other standards.  If a
Scheme system wants to comply with the UCA, then it should be able to
do so without violating the Scheme standard.