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
backup.

Thanks,
-- 
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:03 GMT