Talk:ISO/IEC 9995

3 "alternative" layers in the new ISO/IEC 9995-3 layout
The new layout (draft) has 3 "blue" alternatives on each key. How they are accessed? , + and the third is...? --RokerHRO (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that 9995 leaves it to individual vendors to specify the specifics of how to access the various shift states. If I were making a layout with the Microsoft keyboard tools, I would map the combining characters to the, while the alternate letterforms like þ would be accessed via the and +, or the letters to  and +, with the combining characters via a semicolon deadkey -- User:vanisaac 01:45, 2011-04-27


 * See the newly added sections “ISO/IEC 9995-1” / “Levels and Groups”, and “ISO/IEC 9995-2” / “Level and Group selection”. -- Karl432 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sections out of date
The -3 and -8 sections are out of date because they refer to obsolete versions of those parts of the standard. They may need to be updated to match the current versions. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done for ISO/IEC 9995-3:2010. For ISO/IEC 9995-8:2009, in fact also this recent edition does not specify more than it is described now here, thus there is nothing to be changed or added. -- Karl432 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

obsolete characters?
In the ISO/IEC-9995-3:2010 illustration, it's not clear whether the obsolete/deprecated characters ŉ U+0149, Ŀ/ŀ U+013F/U+0140 and Ĳ/ĳ U+0132/U+0133 are on some keys, or if their preferred representations ʼn &lt;U+02BC,U+006E&gt;, L·/l· &lt;U+004C,U+00B7&gt;/&lt;U+006C,U+00B7&gt;, IJ/ij &lt;U+0049,U+004A&gt;/&lt;U+0069,U+006A&gt; are. Given that separate keys for I, J are there, it seems these are the obsolete/deprecated characters. Is this in the standard or just illustrating a layout conforming to it? --Moyogo/ (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is in the standard. In fact, ISO/IEC 9995-3:2010 uses the ISO/IEC 10646 (i.e., Unicode) values to identify the characters within the standard, but does not require that the keyboard is used in an Unicode environment at all. In theory (even if you will find no real example today), a keyboard conformant to this standard may produce character codes according to ISO/IEC 6937, which does not consider ŉ, Ŀ, ŀ, Ĳ, ĳ as "deprecated" or "outdated". It was a request for the 2010 revision of ISO/IEC 9995-3 that all characters which could be entered with the previous version can also be entered with the current version independent of the character encoding scheme used, and whether the encoding scheme has things like canonical or compatibility equivalences like Unicode or not. However, the standard explicit states for ŉ that it may be represented by the code sequence &lt;U+02BC,U+006E&gt; for environments using Unicode, as this is the valid representation of that character whose code U+0149 is deprecated. Ŀ, ŀ, Ĳ, and ĳ are neither formally deprecated nor canonically equivalent to the sequence of their constituents in Unicode, therefore these characters are not specially addressed that way in ISO/IEC 9995-3:2010. -- Karl432 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The ISO 6937 notes both ŉ &lt;U+0149&gt; and Ŀ/ŀ &lt;U+013F/U+0140&gt; are deprecated. The Unicode Consortium considers Ŀ/ŀ to be deprecated, see its response in (slide 21). I don't know why it's not clearly deprecated instead of just noted as compatibility characters with some preferred form. --Moyogo/ (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Part 7
The section on ISO/IEC 9995-7 seems overly short, Shouldn’t there be depictions of the major or all symbols? We could use key top for this, but since I currently have no direct access to a copy of the standard I cannot check whether the bindings found therein actually match the norm. An example list is found below; if included it should probably have more textual information. — Christoph Päper 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * – affects letters only
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – affects letters only
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label
 * – needs plain-text label





Rosdiablatiff01 Rosdiablatiff01 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will find the time to do this during the next months. Already, I have uploaded some (but not all) of the symbols to Wikimedia Commons (especially versions to be used with ), a work to be continued. Currently, in fact I am involved in a possible revision of this standard. -- Karl432 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Row K?
In the 9995-5 section one of the components of the specification is listed as: However, the actual reference grid discussed in the article makes no mention of a K row, nor is it shown in the diagram. By inference, the "function key row" on a standard PC keyboard must be the K row in question, but if the row is indeed part of the standard then it seems odd that this is never addressed directly. As the article stands, "position K00" doesn't appear to be a valid grid refefence. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Escape key has to be at the position K00 according to the reference grid specified in ISO/IEC 9995-1, or to the left of it (i. e., it has to be positioned near the left border of the first row above of the alphanumeric section).
 * As it is mentioned in ISO/IEC_9995, third phrase from the bottom of that section:
 * * Rows above of the alphanumeric section are to be labeled from K on, and rows below the space key are to be labeled from Z downwards.
 * (In fact, this is not shown in the diagram presented in the article at this time, but the standard itself contains a diagram showing this.) -- Karl432 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So it does! I missed that small note, thanks Karl432. We should probably update our diagram. Perhaps I'll toss that on my todo list. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed "special issues"
The "special issues" sub section has been empty since 2019 but was left with the message "leaving it, since it might still be useful for some readers who may have been confused by the terminology". Removed it now. Wallby (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)