Re: New charset registry entry for iso-8859-11, anybody?

[Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>]

> Dear Charset Experts,

> Behind the scenes, there have been some discussions about adding an
> entry for ISO-8859-11, Latin/Thai.

> However, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-11) says
> the following:

>  >>>>
> ISO-8859-11 is not a registered IANA charset name despite following the
> normal pattern for IANA charsets based on the ISO 8859 series. However,
> the close equivalent TIS-620 (which lacks the non-breaking space) is
> registered with IANA, and can without problems be used for ISO/IEC
> 8859-11, since the no-break space has a code which was unallocated in
> TIS-620.
>  >>>>

> I would like to get your feedback on the following alternative proposals:

> 1) Leave everything as is.


> 2) Add an alias "ISO-8859-11" to the TIS-620 entry (acknowledging
> current practice and ignoring the official difference at 0xA0 (*)).


> 3) Add a new entry of the form:

> Name: ISO-8859-11 (preferred MIME name)
> MIBenum: [TBD]
> Source: ISO/IEC 8859-11:2001
> Alias: csISOLatinThai


> I'm currently inclined to go with 2).

Speaking entirely as a contributor, so am I. We should not be promulgating
ISO nomes that don't match the actual charset content.

> TIS 620-2533 is from 1990
> (http://www.nectec.or.th/it-standards/std620/std620.htm), and doesn't
> have the NBSP at 0xA0. However, the (formerly ECMA) registration at
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/166.pdf which mentions TIS 620-2533
> as the origin and the Thai Industrial Standards Institute as the sponsor
> *does* have the NBSP at 0xA0, and gives a registration date of 13 July
> 1992. So it seems that not only in practice, but also by standards
> organizations, these two variants are treated pretty much as synonyms.

Exactly why I think 2 is the better option.

				Ned