Jonathan Rosenne <jonathan dot rosenne at gmail dot com> wrote: > I don't agree with the criticism. These place name are there to be > readable by a wide audience, rather than writable by locals and > specialists. They require the lowest common denominator.
I don't mind so much if they have to maintain an ASCII-only name field, or a Latin-1-only field. But referencing the 1993 version of ISO 10646-1, or claiming that MS-DOS code page 437 is "the standard United States character set" in 2012 and that it "conforms" to 8859-1 and 10646, helps nobody. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
