> So the answer for Unicode is, instead, *yes*, they were in
> a pre-existing standard that was grandfathered in to the
> initial collection of accented Latin letters.
That's what I was hinting at. :)
Leo
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler_at_att.net> wrote:
> For ISO 8859-3, the answer is in the wiki:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-3
>
> "It was designed to cover Turkish, Maltese and Esperanto, ..."
>
> The answer for IBM CP905 is simple -- it is simply the EBCDIC
> code page of June, 1986 that corresponded to ISO 8859-3.
> That also covers the answer for ISO-IR 109, which is simply
> the registration of the right-hand part of Latin-3.
>
> At any rate, since I didn't check first whether the Esperanto
> letters were in ISO 8859-3 before I wrote my initial response,
> this would certainly remove all proximate speculation about
> the occurrence of the accented letters for Esperanto in
> the Unicode 1.0 repertoire in Latin Extended-A. They were
> included by the exercise of doing the union of all the
> 8859 Latin alphabets.
>
> So the answer for Unicode is, instead, *yes*, they were in
> a pre-existing standard that was grandfathered in to the
> initial collection of accented Latin letters.
>
> And the question, instead, then becomes tracking down through
> the ancient history of JTC1/SC2/WG3 (<-- Note *3*, not *2*),
> why the participants who drafted 8859-3 felt it was important
> to include the Esperanto letters in the repertoire for the South
> European set back in 1986. That date, by the way, is earlier than
> anything I have firsthand records for.
>
> --Ken
>
>
>
> On 3/23/2015 10:10 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
>
>>
>> How come this character is in ISO-8859-3? IBM905?
>>
>> Leo
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Mon Mar 23 2015 - 13:14:12 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 23 2015 - 13:14:12 CDT