From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 26 2010 - 11:32:57 CDT
"Tulasi" <tulasird at gmail dot com> wrote:
> Looks like code-numbers for Unicode are not same as corresponding
> code-numbers of ISO/IEC 8859-1 ISO/IEC 8859-2. But names are same both
> in Unicode and ISO/IEC 8859-1 ISO/IEC 8859-2.
There's something very basic here that is not being understood, one way
or the other.
ISO/IEC 8859-1 and ISO/IEC 8859-2 are different parts of the same
standard. Not all of the characters assigned to code points in 8859-1
are the same as the characters assigned to those same code points in
8859-2. If they were, there would not be two different parts.
The first 256 characters of Unicode (code points 0 to 255) are the same
as the 256 characters of ISO/IEC 8859-1. The names of these 256
characters are also the same, by design, except for the control
characters from 0 to 31, and except for parenthetical notes like
"(German)" in the 8859-1 names.
When a given character exists in both 8859-1 and 8859-2, its name is the
same in both parts, except possibly for the parenthetical notes.
Referring to "ISO/IEC 8859-1 ISO/IEC 8859-2" is ambiguous and confusing.
Do you mean "and" or "or"? 8859-1 and 8859-2 are two different things.
> Among both Unicode and ISO/IEC standards bodies, who can be credited
> for creating any name for any letter/symbol that has LATIN in it?
Stop obsessing over whether any given character name has LATIN in it.
It does not matter.
If you want to know what characters "belong to the Latin script" in the
Unicode sense, use UAX #24 and the Scripts.txt file. There you will
find that, for example, U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does
not contain "LATIN") is considered part of the Latin script, while
U+271D LATIN CROSS (which does) is considered common to all scripts.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 26 2010 - 11:37:44 CDT