Talk:T.51/ISO/IEC 6937

Keyboarding issues
It seems a strange decision not to unify C6 (breve) with CF (caron), C7 (dot) with CA (ring) and CB (cedilla) with CE (ogonek). (Romanian comma below is unified with cedilla, and correctly so.) If you don’t do that you don’t have to restrict the possible combinations. On a pan-European keyboard one would absolutely do this unification for dead keys. Furthermore C5 (macron) should have also allowed more and there should have been a ligate (or separate) code, or you would unify Ää with Ææ and Öö with Œœ, displaying the appropriate one depending on language. They could have covered Latin Extended-A easily. 77.128.157.106 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this useful intent doesnʼt seem to be as simple to realize as that, at least from a Unicode point of view, because now there is as well an a with dot above (U+0227), an e with cedilla (U+0229), and a g with caron [háček] (U+01E7). Hnvnc (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea of a pan-European keyboard layout, rather than a complete Latin one, is biased in that Europe is not Latin only, and globalization as well as historic ties end up making tbe exclusion of African languages inappropriate on an international keyboard layout. Therefore I suggest that every Latin script using country define at least a complete Latin layout based on its national standard layout. Hnvnc (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The code page was never designed with keyboard layouts in mind, but for display. It was designed almost 25 years ago to solve a specific problem then and there. It's almost a given that unfortunate decisions would be included. For that matter, there are much worse code pages around. 194.151.6.70 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues?
Has anyone noticed that much of the text of this article added by User:84.12.157.2 is cribbed straight from http://panda.bg.univ.gda.pl/~janusz/publications/iso6937.html ? (Which has a modification date of 1997, obviously earlier than the wikipedia addition.) That includes a statement about the currency symbol that don't match the character set chart for ISO/IEC 6937:1992 in the footnote I added to the article. Is that a legitimate addition or does it need to be diked out? I'm leaving it for now because I don't think a polish professor is likely to be terribly litigious, but still. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Control characters
Right now, the article gives the standard C0 / ASCII set of control characters, but this was for videotext, not computing. The roughly equivalent CCITT (now ITU-T) standards do not use the standard controls, but others instead. I'm tempted to gut those controls and replace them with the videotext controls instead, but I don't know how close in correspondence the ISO standard was to the relevant CCITT standards (T.51, T.61, T.100, and T.101). Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

G with Cedilla
Not too long ago some IP user changed lowercase ‘g’ with cedilla ‘ģ’ (uppercase: ‘Ģ’) from being done the graphic way with an acute accent (C2hex) to the logic way using cedilla (CBhex). Recently some other IP user changed it back. I currently don’t have access to the standard’s text, so can someone please check which of these is the correct way in ISO/IEC 6937? — Christoph Päper 09:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been a name change which may have mislead the first IP user:
 * «Accented letter LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH CEDILLA was named "small g with acute accent" in the 1983 edition of this International Standard. For compatibility purposes, the coded representation has been kept unchanged. The name has been aligned with that in ISO/IEC 10646-1.»
 * C2hex is correct. Hnvnc (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)