On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:35:20 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> That doesn't seem to be a strictly-correct Latin-1 decoder, then. There >> are a number of unassigned byte values in ISO-8859-1. > > That's incorrect, but I don't blame you for getting it wrong. Who thought > that it was a good idea to distinguish between "ISO 8859-1" and > "ISO-8859-1" as two related but distinct encodings? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1 > > The old ISO 8859-1 standard, the one with undefined values, is mostly of > historical interest. For the last twenty years or so, anyone talking > about either Latin-1 or ISO-8859-1 (with or without dashes) is almost > meaning the 1992 IANA superset version which defines all 256 characters: > > "In 1992, the IANA registered the character map ISO_8859-1:1987, > more commonly known by its preferred MIME name of ISO-8859-1 > (note the extra hyphen over ISO 8859-1), a superset of ISO > 8859-1, for use on the Internet. This map assigns the C0 and C1 > control characters to the unassigned code values thus provides > for 256 characters via every possible 8-bit value." > > > Either that, or they actually mean Windows-1252, but let's not go there. >
Wait, whaaa....... Though in my own defense, MySQL itself seems to have a bit of a problem with encoding names. Its "utf8" is actually "UTF-8 with a maximum of three bytes per character", in contrast to "utf8mb4" which is, well, UTF-8. In any case, abusing "Latin-1" to store binary data is still wrong. That's what BLOB is for. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
