Talk:ISO/IEC 8859

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISO/IEC 8859 article.
Article policies
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view the nomination archive to see why the nomination failed.

Contents

[edit] ISO 8859-12: Celtic or Indic?

Does anyboday have evidence for this: "ISO 8859-12 — was supposed to be Latin-7 and cover Celtic, but this draft was rejected. Numbering continued with -13."

I've read it in Wikipedia and at least one other source, but non authorative. Crissov

The story more often seen on the WWW is, that ISO 8859-12 was set aside for ISCII but the project stalled. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=iso+8859-12+iscii+&btnG=Search

Pjacobi 11:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it, because the ISO-8859 family doesn't use escape sequences. Crissov 11:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neither uses ISCII escape sequences, I just clarified in ISCII. But it may have been considered too close to use of escape sequences, anyway. Pjacobi 11:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not proof per sè, but 'ISO 8859-12 Celtic' gets many responses even if the Wikipedia copies are dropped. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=iso+8859-12+celtic
Anárion 11:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But you get these hits because 8859-14 is celtic and Google has no NEAR operator to differentiate better. Pjacobi 11:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But see [1]: "According to Michael Everson there are drafts for future ISO-8859-11 Thai, ISO-8859-12 Latin7 (Celtic)(...)" and [2] (German): "ISO 8859-12, nicht belegt (in Bearbeitung für Gälisch, Walisisch und Irisch)." (ISO 8859-12, not in use, draft for Gaelic, Welsh, and Irish). And more similar results. Anárion 11:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your link [3] is an older version of [4]. And the newer version gives ISCII instead of Celtic. BTW, Michael Everson is User:Evertype. Pjacobi 19:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Heavens, Czyborra quoted me in 1997. Well. Do I remember? I remember some committee members being mad at me/us/whomever for having used "8859-x" for a draft that hadn't been through the committee (and they were right, but it takes a while to learn how the standards process works). I think we'd assigned 8859-12 to the Celtic draft, which eventually got assigned instead to 8859-14. What's the question? Evertype 21:53, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
Well, the gap of ISO 8859-12 missing in the sequence, makes some human beings curious, what happened there. Searching the WWW gives two competing answers (ISCII or Celtic). And the similiarity of formulation imply that most web pages just repeated the remark of other web pages. No authoritative source can easily be seen. To let this surely totally irrelevant matter rest, any reference to some meetings draft, what was planned for part 12 and why it was skipped, would be most welcome. Pjacobi 07:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

[edit] ISO 8859

(Contested -- July 9)

A very comprehensive and detailed article on this very important family of character encodings. Anarion 12:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Nice, but it would be good to say a bit more about the state of transition from ISO-8859 to Unicode. Why, for example, does it seem to me that I don't have to worry about the "Character Coding" setting of my Mozilla browser, while this was not the case only one or two years ago? Simon A. 15:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point, but alas users still use archaic browsers (MSIE, Netscape etc. -- and Netscape is based on old Mozillas). Anarion 08:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think an explanation of the behavior of particular web browsers is appropriate for this article, unless the discussion is specific to the ISO 8859. I've updated the section you're talking about, though, to better explain the current state of things. - mjb 21:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The central big table of all characters would need serious checking or regeneration from authorative sources. It would be very emberassing if some error is overlooked. Some days ago I just found a small error with Greek. Pjacobi 10:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The table of characters definitely needs to be checked. See also this outstanding request for peer review. Furthermore, this article links to separate articles for each part, i.e. ISO 8859-1, ISO 8859-2, etc., most of which are fairly new and none of which have been checked for consistency nor fully updated to match the ISO 8859 article's recent clarifications w.r.t. precise terminology, the fact that it's a single standard with 15 published parts, how "ISO 8859" is (now) an informal citation for "ISO/IEC 8859", and most importantly, the ISO-8859-x character map discussion. All of the articles should also have a history section showing each published version of each part of the standard, if not also summarizing the differences between them (e.g., ISO 8859-1:1987 vs ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998). The description of Unicode in the Alternatives section is unnecessary and should be pared down. (After renaming the Alternatives

section, I decided to rewrite and lengthen it... doh.) The paragraph about ISO 8859-17 and the related stub page should be removed entirely. The section title "Character Sets" is inaccurate and should be changed. (done and done.) The 8859-1 article, and perhaps the 8859 article as well, should make careful mention of the historical significance of 8859-1 in HTTP/0.9-1.1 and pre-4.0 HTML. Need I go on? - mjb 10:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) (updated 16 Jul 2004)

  • Object. 1) The lead section needs expanding to summarise the entire article. 2) "Development status" is an entire section with a single paragraph; we should probably absorb this somewhere or else expand the section. 3) Could you clarify the "ISO 8859-n standard is not the same as the well-known ISO-8859-n standard"; I read this paragraph a couple of times, and I'm still not clear on why there's a difference / why two different standards have names that differ only by a hyphen. 4) History; there's no history of the standards before Unicode; we should probably have the dates of when various standards and parts of standards were introduced. 5) Adoption: who adopted these standards, and when? Everyone? The main players? Significant exceptions? — Matt 18:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re-merge iso-9959-? pages

a while back a fairly new user split out all the iso-8859-? pages despite the fact that really all they can ever say is "iso-8859-? is the ianas name for the combination of iso 8859-? with the C0 and C1 control codes" someone has now gone and put merge tags on a couple of the pages and i've added them to the rest and centralised discussion here. Plugwash 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between ASCII and ISO-8859

I noticed this article doesn't actually say what the exact relationship between ASCII and ISO-8859 is. Namely, standard ASCII ranges from index 32 to 128, while ISO-8859 extends that, but to what exact index? I don't know the answer, so I can't be the one to say.

[edit] A 16th 8859 amendment?

According to the ISO/IEC 8859-1:1999 page, there is an ISO/IEC 8859-16:2001 amendment as well (Latin alphabet #10). According to Konqueror, it's for "South-Eastern Europe", but up until now, I've never heard of it. -Matt 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ISO/IEC 8859-16 is there or you to read (and has so for a long time). Christoph Päper 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History?

The article never gives any sort of timeline or history, and the best idea of when this was created the article gives is hidden away in the references. ISO 8859-1 was not first standardized in 1999, and the ECMA mention in the references says 1986 was the second edition for its label for ISO 8859-1. When did this all happen?--Prosfilaes 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)