Talk:ISO/IEC 8859

message: For example ISO/IEC 8859-13 D5 should be Õ
ISO/IEC 8859-13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:4D80:4480:1076:7886:34FE:6ACB (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: There are bugs in the Comparison of the various parts (1–16) of ISO/IEC 8859 

message: ===ISO 8859===
(Contested -- July 9)
A very comprehensive and detailed article on this very important family of character encodings. Anarion 12:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

message: (Contested -- July 9)
A very comprehensive and detailed article on this very important family of character encodings. Anarion 12:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[ISO 8859]]

message: a while back a fairly new user split out all the iso-8859-? pages despite the fact that really all they can ever say is "iso-8859-? is the ianas name for the combination of iso 8859-? with the C0 and C1 control codes" someone has now gone and put merge tags on a couple of the pages and i've added them to the rest and centralised discussion here. Plugwash 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-merge iso-9959-? pages 

message: According to the ISO/IEC 8859-1:1999 page, there is an ISO/IEC 8859-16:2001 amendment as well (Latin alphabet #10).  According to Konqueror, it's for "South-Eastern Europe", but up until now, I've never heard of it. -Matt 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ISO/IEC 8859-16 is there or you to read (and has so for a long time). Christoph Päper 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 16th 8859 amendment? 

message: The article never gives any sort of timeline or history, and the best idea of when this was created the article gives is hidden away in the references. ISO 8859-1 was not first standardized in 1999, and the ECMA mention in the references says 1986 was the second edition for its label for ISO 8859-1. When did this all happen?--Prosfilaes 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: "ISO/IEC 8859-1 to Unicode mapping tables" (cit) and "ISO/IEC 8859-15:1998" (cit) report this chars for Iso-8859-15:
D5 Õ (Unicode LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH TILDE not Ő, with Double acute accent) and 
F5 õ (Unicode LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH TILDE not ő, with Double acute accent)
I think that table "Comparison of the various parts of ISO/IEC 8859" should be corrected  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldopaolo.palareti (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  error in 8859-15? 

message: The article states that ISO-8859-1 only partially supports Finnish, while ISO-8859-15 supports it fully. It has to be noted that the difference between -1 and -15 is the characters Š, š, Ž, ž, Œ, œ, and Ÿ. Of these, the first four only ever occur in loanwords from foreign languages, not native Finnish words, and the last three aren't used in Finnish at all. JIP | Talk 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO-8859 and Finnish 

message: I deleted the following unsourced paragraph from the lead:
: In June 2004, the ISO/IEC working group responsible for maintaining eight-bit coded character sets disbanded and ceased all maintenance of the ISO/IEC 8859 series. In the area of character encoding, ISO now concentrates on the Universal Character Set (ISO/IEC 10646); see also Unicode. In computing applications, encodings that provide full UCS support (such as UTF-8 and UTF-16) are finding increasing favor over 8-bit encodings such as ISO/IEC 8859-1.
There is no mention of this disbandment on the ISO news page for 2004. There appears to be an active group, JTC 1/SC 2, that oversees the 8859 standards. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development has stopped? 

message: As a matter of history, the Œ diphthong was taken out of the draft standard at the explicit request of the French representatives. The multiply/divide insertion was opportunistic.
I was at Prime Computer at the time, and an observer on the ANSI X3L2 committee, which was creating an 8-bit character set intended to be an ANSI standard, not at first an international one. The starting point was the DEC Multinational Character Set, and maybe coincidentally the committee chairman, Tom Hastings, was from DEC. (As a side note, the committee liked the fact that the layout of the letters followed that of ASCII, so that you could upcase/downcase with the same simple arithmetic operation (if you don't think too hard about ß and ÿ) - back then, a few instructions were worth the cost of a 64-byte lookup table.) Œ and œ were included, on the assumption that the French would want them, and the set was voted on and agreed by the committee. My recollection is that it was headed for an ANSI standard.
At this point, our hardware team wanted to know what to put in the top half of the character set for the new PT200 CRT terminal, so I gave them the finalized standard. We made quite a few PROMs with Œ in them.
Then the proposal was submitted to ECMA (or ISO, I forget which), because it seemed that the ANSI standard should also be an international standard, and the French representatives on the committee rejected the Œs. My memory is that they explained that the Académie was taking the character out of the language, but it's also possible that the explanation published at , that it was then considered a typographical ligature, not a separate character, is what I remember. In any case, it is not true that the French committee members lost interest, or simply forgot to vote. One was quite disdainful of my inclusion of the Œs in the PT200. A quick look at some French websites suggests that the diphthong is indeed deprecated in France, but not in Quebec.
Then, for some bizarre reason, the committee was so attached to the existing codepoint allocation that the multiply and divide signs, which the British representatives pushed for, were dropped in the gaps, leaving the resulting ugliness in Unicode for ever. I'll never understand why they didn't close the gap and add the new characters at the beginning or end. Perhaps the existing VT200 implementations weighed heavily.
We threw out the PT200 PROMs and re-burned them. I think it was still the first device on the market to support 8859-1.
I won't put all of this in the article, because I can't find the documentation trail any more so have nothing to cite. David Brooks (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Œ 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ISO/IEC 8859. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040704224429/http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeStandardsListPage.TechnicalCommitteeStandardsList?COMMID=23 to http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeStandardsListPage.TechnicalCommitteeStandardsList?COMMID=23
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031218123509/http://www2.lysator.liu.se/~jmo/czyborra_index.html to http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jmo/czyborra_index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence (Jan 9, 2019) in the Introduction section states:"While the bit patterns of the 95 printable ASCII characters are sufficient to exchange information in modern English,...". I question this. I've noted, especially in the past decade, that many sources of English (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Oxford English Dictionary, etc.) use characters outside of that set. Of course, the 95 are sufficient to exchange "some" information, or "most" information, but the implication is that they are completely sufficient to convey all information which is conveyable in modern English and that is either a tautology or simply not true. Particularly when non-English proper nouns are used, European characters or diacritics often appear. Two specific examples from the 1993 SOED are ångström and naïve which appear as alternative spellings. (and note that one isn't a proper noun.) The problem is, it seems to me that like any living language, English mutates and since it is quite easy to include non-classical/traditional letters in electronic media, they are increasingly used in English. (And are often not italicized, which was the traditional method of indicating a non-English word). I've looked but not found an authoritative source that defines English (as written) as composed *only* of the 26 letters the 10 digits and a defined set of the modifiers. I don't believe such a source exists, at least not one which can be universally applied to prescribe "standard formal English" (no one should expect a prescription for informal or non-standard usage, obviously). Unless a 21st Century citation can be added, this statement should be modified to "While the bit patterns of the 95 printable ASCII characters are usually sufficient to exchange information in modern English,..."72.16.99.93 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I question the claim that 95 ASCII (printable) characters are sufficient for all English uses. 

message: There certainly is some trivia about which characters appear the most often and why: apparently German is intentionally supported in all Latin parts. — Christoph Päper 13:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Please explain what the "x" in "ISO 8859-x" is.  Is "x" is synonymous with "part"?
I came to this article for a refresh on "ISO 8859-1" and friends then found
nothing (unhidden) in the current revision of this article that is clearly an
answer to my question.
Apparently the answer to my question is already present in the article's source.
I ask that it be unhidden.
Please change the 1st column of
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEC_8859#The_parts_of_ISO/IEC_8859
from enumerating "Part x" to enumerating "8859-x".  It seems that at least one
of the other columns could be dispensed with at the same time.
Please also change the top of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859#Table
from enumerating "x" to enumerating "8859-x" or perhaps "ISO 8859-1".
2601:1C2:881:3630:0:0:0:8612 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is ISO 8859-x?  Is it "Part-x"?