On May 22, 2008, at 12:23, Ian Hickson wrote:
EUC-KR -> Windows-949
KS_C_5601-1987 -> Windows-949
FWIW, x-windows-949 would be more correct given the current IANA
situation.
The list is missing tis-620, x-iso-8859-11 and iso-8859-11 which
should turn into x-windows-874.
Let me know if you have any more information, e.g. an exact list of
what should be a conformance error in each of those
cases.
After pondering the usefulness of conformance errors in this area, I'm
inclined to think that there should be no particular errors when in
coding name aliasing happens. This means that I would even suggest
removing the C1 range bytes as errors when ISO-8859-1 turns into
Windows-1252. My rationale is that the cost/benefit characteristics of
reporting theoretical wrongness in this area are unfavorable.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
