> 1) There is a confusion between "LATIN5" and ISO 8859-5. LATIN5 is not
> ISO 8859-5, but is actually ISO 8859-9. Should we rename LATIN5 to
> "ISO8859-5" (or whatever) as the encoding name? I think we should.
> For your information, here are the correct mapping between ISO
> 8859-n and LATINn.
>
> ISO 8859-1 LATIN1
> ISO 8859-2 LATIN2
> ISO 8859-3 LATIN3
> ISO 8859-4 LATIN4
> ISO 8859-9 LATIN5
> ISO 8859-10 LATIN6
I just found additions:
ISO 8859-13 LATIN7
ISO 8859-14 LATIN8
ISO 8859-15 LATIN9
--
Tatsuo Ishii