> Is not it ironic that *after* Unicode finally became (almost)
> supported, we started to put encoding-specific stuff in?  Or is it
> riding over unicode coinciding with Latin-1 over the first "page"?

I think it is the latter. Unicode and ISO8879 seem to be identical for the
first set of characters to 255.

For example, according to the HTML 4 spec (sorry that's what I have on my
desk)

  © is \xA9 in ISO8859 and 00A9 in unicode.

They do seem to agree.

-- 
Tim Jenness
JCMT software engineer/Support scientist
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj

Reply via email to