Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!sics.se!ifi!enag From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Newsgroups: comp.std.internat Subject: Re: universality of Latin-1 Message-ID: Date: 12 Apr 91 02:09:42 GMT References: <16968@hoptoad.uucp> <1110@sranha.sra.co.jp> Sender: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Followup-To: comp.std.internat Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 34 In-Reply-To: erik@srava.sra.co.jp's message of 10 Apr 91 11: 14:41 GMT In article <1110@sranha.sra.co.jp> erik@srava.sra.co.jp (Erik M. van der Poel) writes: John Gilmore writes: > And my windows all use ISO Latin 1. If Torbj|rn would send the > umlauted letter in that standardized character set, it would look right > in both the States and in Sweden. Have you ever tried to send yourself a message in Latin-1? Did it work? And even if *you* have a reasonable version of sendmail (one that doesn't strip the 8th bit), what makes you so certain that Torbj|rn's message and anyone else's won't pass through a site that *does* strip the 8th bit? Relax, we're working on that. It doesn't really take an 8-bit SMTP data path to get this done, although many think it would be kind of useful. Please don't confuse the transport layer word width (7 bits) with the transported data's word width (e.g. 8 bits). Also, what's so "standardized" about ISO Latin-1? What makes it more standard than, say, Latin-2? I don't think anyone is discussing which is the "more" standardized part of the ISO 8859 family, it's just that ISO 8859-1 has been adopted by more people more places than any other part has, partly because it's better organized (IMO). As an example, using guillemot quotes +like this;, if you get + and ;, you didn't benefit from ISO 8859-1 right now. Maybe in the future. -- I don't need ISO 8859-1 to spell my name. Thanks, mom & dad. -- [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway