[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lynx-dev] rendering — (0x97)

From: Thomas Dickey
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] rendering — (0x97)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 15:02:59 -0400 (EDT)

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Thorsten Glaser" <>
| Cc: "lynx-dev" <>
| Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 1:40:48 PM
| Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] rendering &#151; (0x97)

| Thomas Dickey dixit:
|>but in the meantime, the html5 crowd declared that iso-8859-1 is
|>identical to cp1252
| I knew they were crazy, but… like THAT?

Here's something relevant:

I seem to recall reading that in one of those pages summarizing changes for 

On the other hand, it might be one of those "facts" created in Wikipedia 
(there's a lot of that).
And even if I saw it some other place, Wikipedia might still be the ultimate 

Looking there, I see it evolving since

with the second edit referring to

Here's the source for the first edit:

See " Character encoding requirements", which (seems familiar) says that 
ISO-8859-1 should be treated as if it were CP1252.

Move forward to 2012, and the wording is amended

and going to 2013, I don't see it anymore.

That is, I don't see it in whatwg at that point.  But Wikipedia's been updated, 
and so has whatwq...

As of today, here's the current page:

which says

This is now standard behavior in the HTML5 specification, which requires that 
documents advertised as ISO-8859-1 actually be parsed with the Windows-1252 

[5] "Encoding". WHATWG. 27 January 2015. sec. 5.2 Names and labels. Archived 
from the original on 4 February 2015. Retrieved 4 February 2015.

That is, it points to something that we can read on Internet Archive:

...and that page does say (in effect) that ISO-8859-1 and several other 


are to be interpreted as CP1252.  The current page gives the same information:
| That being said this still is UTF-8, not ISO-8859-1…

Thomas E. Dickey <>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]