**From:** Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (*qrczak@knm.org.pl*)

**Date:** Sun Oct 10 2004 - 22:21:22 CST

**Previous message:**Asmus Freytag: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**In reply to:**James Kass: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

jameskass@att.net (James Kass) writes:

[...]

*> If there are eight bits, why shouldn't they be bits one
*

*> through eight?
*

Because then the number of a bit doesn't correspond to the exponent

of its weight, so I even don't know in which order they are specified

(as many people order bits backwards, i.e. from the most significant).

-- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak@knm.org.pl ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

**Next message:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Previous message:**Asmus Freytag: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**In reply to:**James Kass: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Doug Ewell: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sun Oct 10 2004 - 22:24:44 CST
*