Opting for IDv2.3 and ISO-8859-2

I came over from here, as the original question has changed.

This question is probably for Florian at first: is it possible to have an option at mpeg tag writing, as ID3v2.3 with ISO-8859-2?

As I wrote in the previous tread, it would not probably breach the standards that much, as Latin-1 and Latin-2 are very similar, just a few characters differ, all codes above 127.

What happens now, if I choose writing in v2.3/ISO-8859-1 is that as soon as I save my files, those four characters missing from the ISO set are immediately replaced with o/O and u/U, not only in the tags, but also as they appear on the user interface of Mp3tag too.

My current workaround for this goes like this: first I write tags with Mp3tag using v2.3/ISO-8859-1, that is appropriate for a good majority of the cases, then I correct the rest in WMP, that seems to write back the needed characters in the v2.3 tag properly.
However, as it was pointed out that WMP might do some "proprietary stuff" in the background, I would like to stick with Mp3tag exclusively, and avoid this "hassle".

Thank you

Being not compliant to a standard makes your product a non-standard one. I wouldn't want MP3tag to become non-standard.

Please refer to

and in particular:
"If nothing else is said a string is represented as ISO-8859-1 characters in the range $20 - $FF. Such strings are represented as <text string>, or <full text string> if newlines are allowed, in the frame descriptions. All Unicode strings use 16-bit unicode 2.0 (ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993, UCS-2). Unicode strings must begin with the Unicode BOM ($FF FE or $FE FF) to identify the byte order."

Thanks for you reply.

I have already read this document (you can read this fact from my posts actually), therefore referring to it does not bring new information or an answer to the question.

Yes, this might be your opinion, and I don't deny it.

However, I did not really hoped for opinions, but for a clear statement: "is it possible to have an option ..." - that is, in one hand is very simple (yes/no technically doable), in the other hand it depends on the developer, whether or not they want to do it, for what ever reasons.

As for the second half, I can translate the question like this: does the developer want a more versatile tool (i.e., that more people can use more widely, and potentially support it more), with - say -a strict note (in the help, or in the on-screen explanation hints, you name it) warning that that particular option is being "non-standard".

Because, from the users point of view, editig those tags with missing characters in wmp (or in any other way, as a workaround) results in a "nonstandard product" per definition, so the tag will end being "non-standard" anyway. So the question for the user is do I need to use two different tools and go two runs on each tag, or a single one can do it for me.
That is really the question for the user, and not like "whether or not do I want all my tags 100.1% compliant".
Compliant to what? Well, to an informal standard - where: "informal" = no standardization body was involved in its creation nor has such an organization given it a formal approval status yet.