A further issue regarding "one-to-one mappings".

Article: "Encodings don’t have to be simple one-to-one mappings like Latin-1. Consider IBM’s EBCDIC, which was used on IBM mainframes."

I don't think this paragraph is about one-to-one mappings per se. (ie: one character to one code.) It seems to be about whether ranges of characters whose code values are contiguous in one coding system are also contiguous in another coding system. The EBCDIC encoding is still one-to-one, I believe.

The subject of one-chararacter-to-one-code mapping is important (normalization etc), though perhaps beyond the current article. But I think the article should avoid suggesting that many-to-one or one-to-many scenarios are common.