🚀 go-pugleaf

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]					     <enag@ifi.uio.no>
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway			   <erik@naggum.uu.no>