Talk:ISO/IEC 9995

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

3 "alternative" layers in the new ISO/IEC 9995-3 layout[edit]

The new layout (draft) has 3 "blue" alternatives on each key. How they are accessed? AltGr, AltGr+ Shift 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 AltGr, while the alternate letterforms like þ would be accessed via the SGCaps and SGCaps+ Shift, or the letters to AltGr and AltGr+ Shift, 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Sections out of date[edit]

The -3 and -8 sections are out of date because they refer to obsolete versions of those parts of the standard.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?[edit]

ISO/IEC 9995-3:2010 applied to the US keyboard layout

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 <U+02BC,U+006E>, L·/l· <U+004C,U+00B7>/<U+006C,U+00B7>, IJ/ij <U+0049,U+004A>/<U+0069,U+006A> 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 <U+02BC,U+006E> 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 <U+0149> and Ŀ/ŀ <U+013F/U+0140> are deprecated. The Unicode Consortium considers Ŀ/ŀ to be deprecated, see its response in [1] (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)