> So the answer for Unicode is, instead, *yes*, they were in > a pre-existing standard that was grandfathered in to the > initial collection of accented Latin letters.
That's what I was hinting at. :) Leo On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Ken Whistler <[email protected]> wrote: > For ISO 8859-3, the answer is in the wiki: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-3 > > "It was designed to cover Turkish, Maltese and Esperanto, ..." > > The answer for IBM CP905 is simple -- it is simply the EBCDIC > code page of June, 1986 that corresponded to ISO 8859-3. > That also covers the answer for ISO-IR 109, which is simply > the registration of the right-hand part of Latin-3. > > At any rate, since I didn't check first whether the Esperanto > letters were in ISO 8859-3 before I wrote my initial response, > this would certainly remove all proximate speculation about > the occurrence of the accented letters for Esperanto in > the Unicode 1.0 repertoire in Latin Extended-A. They were > included by the exercise of doing the union of all the > 8859 Latin alphabets. > > So the answer for Unicode is, instead, *yes*, they were in > a pre-existing standard that was grandfathered in to the > initial collection of accented Latin letters. > > And the question, instead, then becomes tracking down through > the ancient history of JTC1/SC2/WG3 (<-- Note *3*, not *2*), > why the participants who drafted 8859-3 felt it was important > to include the Esperanto letters in the repertoire for the South > European set back in 1986. That date, by the way, is earlier than > anything I have firsthand records for. > > --Ken > > > > On 3/23/2015 10:10 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote: > >> >> How come this character is in ISO-8859-3? IBM905? >> >> Leo >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
