Dan@dna.lth.se (Dan Oscarsson) (03/31/91)
In article <PHILIP.91Mar5120556@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com> philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) writes: >I heard a rumour that the International Reference Version of >International Alphabet number 5 was going to be changed to align with >ISO 8859. Can anybody provide me with chapter and verse on this one? > It would be nice if IA5 was the same as ISO 8859-1. What is in IA5 today? Which characters in IA5 makes it claim to be an international alphabet? What standard organization has defined IA5? Not ISO I assume. Dan -- Dan Oscarsson Department of Computer Science Lund Institute of Technology e-mail: Dan.Oscarsson@dna.lth.se Box 118 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar31.092157.20297@lth.se> Dan@dna.lth.se (Dan Oscarsson) writes: > What standard organization has defined IA5? Not ISO I assume. > No, CCITT. -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl
enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) (04/02/91)
Dan, CCITT IA5 is identical to ISO 646 IRV. CCITT IA5, ISO 646 and ECMA 6 (or was it 4) were jointly developed. -- [Erik Naggum] <enag@ifi.uio.no> Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway <erik@naggum.uu.no>
Dan@dna.lth.se (Dan Oscarsson) (04/02/91)
In article <ENAG.91Apr1214243@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes: >Dan, > >CCITT IA5 is identical to ISO 646 IRV. > >CCITT IA5, ISO 646 and ECMA 6 (or was it 4) were jointly developed. > OK so it is ISO 646 they are talking about. I would never call that an international alphabet. Dan -- Dan Oscarsson Department of Computer Science Lund Institute of Technology e-mail: Dan.Oscarsson@dna.lth.se Box 118 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) (04/03/91)
>>>>> On 31 Mar 91 09:21:57 GMT, Dan@dna.lth.se (Dan Oscarsson) said:
Dan> It would be nice if IA5 was the same as ISO 8859-1.
Dan> What is in IA5 today? Which characters in IA5 makes it claim to be an
Dan> international alphabet?
Dan> What standard organization has defined IA5? Not ISO I assume.
IA5 (it's full name is International Alphabet No. 5) is defined in
CCITT Recommendation T.50. According to a note, it claims that this
recommendation corresponds to International Standard ISO 646.
The [recommendation|standard] is unsatisafactory in that it defines a
whole collection of character sets which are all variants of each
other. There is one distinguished version -- "the International
Refernce Version (IRV)" which defines all the characters.
As I understand the situation, there is a move afoot to change the 2/4
character from the crown symbol to the dollar sign.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Philip
--
Philip Gladstone Dev Lab Europe, Data General, Cambridge, UK
Why don't I just go zootlewurdle? Does it matter? Even if it does
matter, does it matter that it matters?enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.085354.9993@lth.se>, Dan Oscarsson writes: In article <ENAG.91Apr1214243@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Erik Naggum writes: >CCITT IA5 is identical to ISO 646 IRV. > >CCITT IA5, ISO 646 and ECMA 6 (or was it 4) were jointly developed. OK so it is ISO 646 they are talking about. I would never call that an international alphabet. Unfortunately, you weren't around when they named IA1, so your chance to influence the name of IA6 is slim, but you could try. :-) BTW, it's ECMA 6. ECMA 4 is about flow-charts (yuk!). -- [Erik Naggum] <enag@ifi.uio.no> Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway <erik@naggum.uu.no>