Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 11/22/2004 07:31:02
>>> 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B