From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 12:35:40 CDT
Andreas Prilop wrote on Monday, May 05, 2008 4:30 PM
>I refer to
> In ISO-8859-1, code position 0x90 is mapped to U+0090.
> In Windows-1252, code position 0x90 is listed as "undefined".
> Why are they treated differently?
> International Standard ISO/IEC 8859-1 does *not* define
> code position 0x90. So it might also be listed as "undefined".
0x90 is defined in the IANA version of ISO-8859-1, which calls up the
description in RFC1345. In a web context, I believe the IANA definition
should take precedence over ISO/IEC.
On the other hand, Windows-1252 might be extended again and assign a meaning
to 0x90, so it is probably better not to map any Unicode codepoint to that
> Or, for purely practical reasons, 0x90 in Windows-1252 might
> also be mapped to U+0090.
Which is reported to be what Windows *currently* actually does.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2008 - 12:39:29 CDT