I actually did quote that, to no avail. This seems to be the missing information though (from the wikipedia iso-8859-1 article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1):
> In 1992, the > IANA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority> > registered the character map *ISO_8859-1:1987*, more commonly known by its preferred MIME <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME> name of *ISO-8859-1* (note the extra hyphen over ISO 8859-1), a superset of ISO 8859-1, for use on the Internet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>. This map assigns the C0 and C1 control characters<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_character> to the unassigned code values thus provides for 256 characters via every possible 8-bit value. To me this means that the blanks in the "codepage layout" diagram are quite misleading and should be filled in. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > Buck Golemon wrote: > > Code points U+0000 through U+00FF in Unicode are identical to the >>> corresponding code points 0x00 through 0xFF in ISO 8859-1. >>> >> >> That's my personal understanding as well, but can you help me find >> documentation that I can show to my skeptical workmates? >> > > You can quote the Unicode Standard, Version 6.2 itself: > http://www.unicode.org/**versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch07.pdf<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch07.pdf> > > On page 215 (Section 7.1, "Latin"): > "Unicode follows ISO/IEC 8859-1 in the layout of Latin letters up to > U+00FF." > > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA > http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell > >
