No Subject

[~ned+charsets-errors@sigurd.innosoft.com]

[Alain] :
I thought about it too. You may be right, an alias would perhaps mislead
people less. By chance Latin 1 was part 1 of the ISO/IEC 8859 series... We
do not have this privilege with latin 9 and that might be confusing indeed.

I'm not alone to make this recommendation then but I believe it might be
better too, although some other people might prefer only "Latin 9" then as
a name... So I don't know. Is there a harm to have one alias for MIME usage?

Why were aliases created in the first place? Were there problems
encountered with those as I suspect (the more it is complex, the more it is
error-prone)?

Alain LaBonté
Québec

________
[Misha] :
>Misha Wolf
>Chair, W3C I18N WG
>

[Marc] :
>> Hi,
>> 	modified request per comments:
>> 	- removed alias latin0
>> 	- preferred alias in uppercase
>> 	- csISOLatin changed to 9
>> 
>> The new request will be:
>> 
>> Name: ISO-8859-15
>> Alias: ISO-8859-15 (preferred MIME name)
>> Alias: latin9
>> Alias: csISOLatin9
>> 
>> 
>> Since the ISO standard is at its final ballot stage, then I will wait until
>> final approval and resubmit it to the list at that time.  In between,
>> people can use it for software development.
>> 
>> Thanks everybody,
>> 
>> Marc. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Marc Blanchet			| Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
>> Viagénie inc.			| http://www.viagenie.qc.ca
>> 3107 des hôtels		| tél.: 418-656-9254 
>> Ste-Foy, Québec		| fax.: 418-656-0183
>> Canada, G1W 4W5		| radio: VA2-JAZ
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> pgp: 57 86 A6 83 D3 A8 58 32 F7 0A BB BD 5F B2 4B A7
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Auteur du livre TCP/IP Simplifié, Éditions Logiques, 1997
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender,
>except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
>Reuters Ltd.