Re: Registration of new charset: ISO 8859-16

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

don't register any aliases.
You need to allocate a MIBEnum, though.

--On 24. august 2001 11:31 +0100 Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> 
wrote:

> "IANA" wrote on 2001-08-23 23:25 UTC:
>> I'm in the process of registering this.
>> Is there an Alias for this new Character Set?
>
> I don't see a need for any aliases, but I don't object too strongly if
> you really want to add any for consistency with the registration of the
> other ISO 8859 parts. The other ISO 8859 parts have various amounts of
> aliases registered (mostly for no good reason I suspect), and the
> equivalents for ISO-8859-16 would probably be some or all of:
>
> Alias: iso-ir-226
> Alias: ISO_8859-16:2001
> Alias: ISO_8859-16
> Alias: latin10
> Alias: l10
>
> In general, I believe that aliases are an evil thing and the fewer there
> are the better. Aliases should in my opinion only be used to handle
> inconsistent historic practice, but they should not be introduced for
> new charsets. The whole point of a registry is to have *single* exact
> unique names for objects and conventions after all. The aliases were ill
> conceived from the beginning. For instance: The existing ISO-IR-xxx
> aliases are technically wrong, because the ISO IR number refers only to
> the upper half (G1) of the 8-bit character set, not to the full charset.
> Some aliases that contain the year of publication are by now obsolete,
> because ISO has published the second edition of the older ISO 8859
> parts. These are just some of the aspects why I think the aliases were a
> bad idea to start with.
>
> Also note that the capitalization in the registry is inconsistent. It
> says "iso-8859-14" but "ISO-8859-15". The entire thing probably deserves
> a cleanup.
>
> Markus
>
> --
> Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
> Email: mkuhn at acm.org,  WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
>
>