W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2002

iso8859-1 vs iso-8859-1

From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:49:50 -0700
To: www-validator@w3.org
Cc: bjoern@hoehrmann.de
Message-ID: <20020802174950.GA9601@optimalco.com>

On 16 Apr 2001 Bj�rn posted:

>* Donald Leahy wrote:
>>The charecter set used for the Microsoft website 'iso8859-1'
>>was verified as not valid, could you look into this, Josh
>ISO_8859-1:1987 can be named iso-ir-100, ISO_8859-1, ISO-8859-1, latin1,
>l1, IBM819, CP819, csISOLatin1, where ISO-8859-1 is the preferred MIME
>name, iso8859-1 is no valid alias.

What's the authority for that?  I've been googling and can't find the
definitive source.  I noticed that GNU's site uses the 'iso8859-1' name,
but I'm not going to bring it to their attention without darn good

Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatul�k, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatul�k agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 13:49:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:30:35 UTC