From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:53:55 EST
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> From: "Simon Butcher" <pickle at alien dot net dot au>
>> However personally, when dealing with a octet, or an arbitrary number
>> of octets, I believe the byte-pictures would be much easier to deal
>> with (especially when dealing with a lot of raw data).
> Except that it would require 256 new codepoints, instead of just 6 for
> the proposed HEX DIGIT characters.
> What you propose is NOT a complementary set of digits for base 16, but
> a complete new set of numbers in base 256, so that a glyph like 
> will be displayed instead of just 0 (this is a disunification of all
> the existing ASCII digits, as if it was a new script using its own
> numbering system)...
The issue of encoding single hex digits and the issue of encoding "byte
pictures" consisting of pairs of hex digits (enclosed in a box or
something) are completely separate. One should not be imagined to be an
alternative to the other.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 01:57:38 EST