Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/22/2004 07:31:02
>>>> [...8859-1...]
>>> Well, 0x80-0x9f _are_ valid characters, just not printable.
>> Oh!  Okay, I've been confused about 8859.  What are their meanings?
> They have no *graphic* meanings, and neither do code positions
> 0x00-0x1F.

Sure.  So what are their (non-graphic) meanings?

> The 8859-1 can be used in conjunction with ISO/IEC 6429, which
> specifies a set of coded control functions

Perhaps.  But now it sounds as though you're saying that 8859-1
_doesn't_ define meanings for them, instead assuming that something
else in use (eg, 6429) will.  But you started off saying they _were_

Now I'm really confused.  Are you trying to say they're valid but have
no defined meanings?  I'm not sure what "valid" could mean, then.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B