> Assuming that ISO 8859 is anything official (which is not what I think),
> then (use of) Latin-1 (and Latin-3 & Latin-5) have not been deprecated,
but
> rather a note have been added in the text of these standards to explain
that
> there are small restrictions. Then, a note in a informative appendix
> (which means this is nothing official) explains that only Latin-9 have
all
That is what I meant - I didn't want to get into technicalities. If you
look at the annexes for the more recent 8859 proposals, you'll see that
Latin-1 is marked in parentheses, indicating deprecation.
Similarly, my point about there being much more Latin-1 than Latin-9 was
that the original intent when encoding these documents was to do so as
Latin-1. Your point about 1252 is important, although irrelevant since I
was commenting on the parts of 8859 and not on Microsoft Windows. To the
best of my knowledge, data has been encoded in France for quite some time,
while Latin-9 has only been available for a little over a year, and isn't
even supported on many hardware configurations. Since Latin-1 was the
encoding of choice prior to Latin-9 (and still is in many situations),
there really are much more data encoded as 8859-1 than as 8859-9. To state
that a subset of Latin-1 is not Latin 1 is incorrect: I think it is more
correct to state that the common subset of characters in Latin-1 and
Latin-9 is so large that it's often impossible to differentiate between
them (one of the many reasons why people should stop creating new parts of
8859!).
>> * Croatian is encoded using Latin-1
>
> ? Probably difficult to achieve. OTOH, Albanian, as German or Swedish,
can be
> encoded with either Latin-2 or Latin-1.
Oops! What a dreadful typo - probably one of my worst ever.
B=
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:03 EDT