RE: Character set cluelessness

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:40:50 -0700

Jonathan Rosenne <jonathan dot rosenne at gmail dot com> wrote:

> I don't agree with the criticism. These place name are there to be
> readable by a wide audience, rather than writable by locals and
> specialists. They require the lowest common denominator.

I don't mind so much if they have to maintain an ASCII-only name field,
or a Latin-1-only field. But referencing the 1993 version of ISO
10646-1, or claiming that MS-DOS code page 437 is "the standard United
States character set" in 2012 and that it "conforms" to 8859-1 and
10646, helps nobody.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell ­
Received on Tue Oct 02 2012 - 15:42:34 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 02 2012 - 15:42:34 CDT