From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 23:51:57 CDT
Jungshik Shin scripsit:
> As is often the case, Unicode experts are not necessarily experts on
> 'legacy' character sets and encodings. The 'official' name of 'ASCII' is
> ANSI X3.4-1968 or ISO 646 (US). While dispelling myths about Unicode,
> I'm afraid you're spreading misinformation about what came before it.
> The sentence that 'ANSI pushed this scope ... represents 256 characters'
> is misleading. ANSI has nothing to do with various single, double,
> triple byte character sets that make up single and multibyte character
> encodings. They're devised and published by national and international
> standard organizations as well as various vendors. Perhaps, you'd better
> just get rid of the sentence 'ANSI pushed ... providing backward
> compatibility with ASCII'.
Like it or not, "ANSI" has two meanings now: the American National
Standards Institute and a generic term for an 8-bit Windows codepage.
Similarly, "OEM" means both an original equipment manufacturer and an
8-bit PC-DOS codepage.
-- "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously email@example.com over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 20 2004 - 23:54:05 CDT