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

Re: iso8859-1 vs iso-8859-1

From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:13:13 -0700
To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org, bjoern@hoehrmann.de
Message-ID: <20020802201313.GA11056@optimalco.com>

scripsit Ville Skyttä:
> 
> On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 20:49, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> 
> > >* 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.
> 
> IANA?  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets>

Thanks, Ville.  "Protocol _Number_ Assignment Services" isn't the first
place I'd look for charset _names_, but IANIANA :/

-- 
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 16:13:12 GMT

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