From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 12 2009 - 13:25:59 CDT
On 12 Apr 2009, at 18:51, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>> Let me try a different approach. What do you believe is the
>>> difference between an ASCII "A" and a Unicode "A" -- not the
>>> bitwise representations permitted by ASCII and Unicode
>>> respectively, but the characters themselves?
>> What do you think is the difference between the Australian Euro and
>> the European Euro -- not the difference that one is a type of
>> Kangaroo and the other a currency unit?
> Do you honestly think that is a reasonable analogy? If you do, then
> I can't help you.
Well, if one uses an ASCII encoding one may get an ASCII font, and if
one chooses a Unicode encoding one typically needs a Unicode font. And
they may have not anything to do with each other. And despite that,
some Unicode characters gets their names from ASCII.
So it seems a pretty good analogy. Though it was entered as an irony
of your own type of analogies :-).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 12 2009 - 13:28:58 CDT