Re: Terminology question re ASCII

Normally the term ASCII just refers to the 7-bit form. What is sometimes
called "8-bit ASCII" is the same as ISO Latin 1. If you want to be
completely clear, you can say "7-bit ASCII".

Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:12 AM, <dzo_at_bisharat.net> wrote:

> Quick question on terminology use concerning a legacy encoding:
>
> If one refers to "plain ASCII," or "plain ASCII text" or "... characters,"
> should this be taken strictly as referring to the 7-bit basic characters,
> or might it encompass characters that might appear in an 8-bit character
> set (per the so-called "extended ASCII")?
>
> I've always used the term "ASCII" in the 7-bit, 128 character sense, and
> modifying it with "plain" seems to reinforce that sense. (Although "plain
> text" in my understanding actually refers to lack of formatting.)
>
> Reason for asking is encountering a reference to "plain ASCII" describing
> text that clearly (by presence of accented characters) would be 8-bit.
>
> The context is one of many situations where in attaching a document to an
> email, it is advisable to include an unformatted text version of the
> document in the body of the email. Never mind that the latter is probably
> in UTF-8 anyway(?) - the issue here is the terminology.
>
> TIA for any feedback.
>
> Don Osborn
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 29 2013 - 00:41:22 CDT