Hey mark!

 ml> i said that latin1, latin-1 and (now) "latin 1" (from above) are
 ml> all different names for the same entity

No they aren't.  latin1 is an alias for iso-8859-1.  latin-1 and (now) "latin
1" are not.

 ml> *those* should all be aliased to the proper one

latin1 is an alias for iso-8859-1.  What should latin-1 and (now) "latin 1" be
aliased to if indeed they are not aliases for any existing encoding or
character map?  I am not convinced they are indeed an alias to any encoding or
character map.  Find a reference and I'll believe you.  So far all I found were
IANA pointing to encoding or character maps I cannot find anywhere.

As near as I can tell, ISO-10646-Unicode-Latin1,
ISO-8859-1-Windows-3.0-Latin-1, and/or ISO-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1 are
listed by IANA as proper names for the latin-1 alias, none of which I have or
can find anywhere.  How about you?  I did run across a few daring souls who
speculated that cp1252 should be deployed for the latin-1 alias and that seems
to jive with what I have seen in certain documents claiming to be latin-1
encoded.  In fidonet I have seen cp1252 in two cases, one of which I already
mentioned (Björn Felton).

 ml> case closed...

That works for me.

Life is good,
Maurice

... Don't cry for me I have vi.
--- GNU bash, version 4.4.0(1)-rc1 (x86_64-atom-linux-gnu)