• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:48:49 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <E16GeCZ-0004ll-00@m...> <032101c189ef$5fe61db0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Rick Jelliffe wrote:


> No. 0x0085 is not AFAIK a character in ISO 8859-1 (it is one of the design principles
> of 8859-1 that it will not fail on systems that mask the 8th bit and look for control
> characters).


In one sense that is correct.  However, the character encoding scheme
labeled "ISO 8859-1" includes both the C0 and the C1 character sets.
Check the mapping tables at http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859 .

-- 
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

• References:
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: embedded html
• Next by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread