[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

windows-1252

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Erik van der Poel wrote:
> 
>>if you take a look at the email archive, you will see that no
>>authority has bothered to respond to Microsoft's repeated
>>questions
> 
> The requester claiming to speak for MS didn't bother to address
> the questions about his registrations, e.g. discrepancies of
> his 1252 with the cp-1252 listed in
> 
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/MICSFT/WINDOWS/CP1252.TXT

What discrepancies do you claim to exist, exactly?

> The latter was apparently supplied by another person claiming
> to speak for MS.  Either 0x81, 0x8D, 0x8F, 0x90, and 0x9D are
> mapped one to one, u+0081 etc., or they are not.  As long as 
> that's not absolutely clear and also reflected in the Unicode
> mappings modifying the IANA registry about 1252 makes no sense.

RFC 2978 does not require a Unicode mapping. It says that there "SHOULD" 
be a 10646 mapping, but it does not use the word "MUST".

I agree that it is nice to have the 10646 mapping, but are unassigned 
codepoints not allowed to exist in IANA-registered charsets (other than 
UTF-8 and all the 10646-based charsets)? If so, where in the RFC does it 
say that?

Erik