Re: ASCII as a subset of Unicode (was: Re: Oxford proposes a leaner alphabet)

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Sun Apr 12 2009 - 13:25:59 CDT

  • Next message: Curtis Clark: "Re: ASCII as a subset of Unicode"

    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