"Robert A. Rosenberg" <email@example.com> wrote:
> I would have removed the useless junk in the C1 range and put useful
> glyphs there. What ACTUAL purpose is served by wasting 32 codepoints
> to duplicate the C0 (x00-x1F) codes? I can see no reason why a
> character code needs to function as if the high bit is not there. If I
> strip the high bit off a character ALL the characters in the xA0-xFF
> range will display wrong so why preserve the C1 codes just so it
> FORMATS "correctly"? It is junk in any case so just display the
> formatting incorrectly.
The C1 range contains 32 additional control characters, not just
duplicates of the C0 range, and it is my understanding that many
terminals do use these control codes, although PCs and Macs do not.
The file UnicodeData.txt, available from the Unicode FTP site, shows
the names of most of the C1 characters (but not all, for whatever
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT