Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Quote/Cytat - Sean Leonard (Mon 21 Sep 2015 10:51:42 PM CEST): Related question as I am researching this: How can I acquire (cheaply or free) the latest and most official copy of US-ASCII, namely, the version that Unicode references? [...] I've never seen the

RE: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

As an interested outsider may I suggest that the term "ASCII", indeed the concept of ASCII, is only of historical interest and should not be used in any modern context. Computing is riddled with terms, "word" being another in similar vein, that are used to mean something they are not and would

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Le lundi, 21 septembre 2015 à 09:22, Sean Leonard a écrit : > I think we can limit our inquiry to "characters" and "code points". Both > of those are well-defined in Unicode (see > ). I wouldn't say so. If you actually have a look at the definition for character

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Hello Doug, On 2015/09/22 00:42, Doug Ewell wrote: I was thinking that something like "non–Basic-Latin Unicode" might be Is that non-Basic Latin or not Basic-Latin? useful. It avoids the confusion of referring to ASCII as a range of code points instead of a separate encoding standard.

RE: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Check here: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS+4-1986%5bR2012%5d -Original Message- From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Sean Leonard Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:52 PM To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Concise term for non-ASCII

RE: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Sean Leonard Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:22 AM > Well what I am getting at is that when writing standards documents in various > SDOs (or any other > computer science text, for that matter), it is helpful to identify these >

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:54:23 +0100 "Tony Jollans" wrote: > Windows code pages and their ilk predate Unicode, and I would only > ever expect to see them used in environments where legacy support is > needed, and would not expect a significant amount of new > documentation about

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Sean Leonard wrote: > Additionally as Peter stated, an expression including "Basic Latin > block" (e.g., characters beyond the Basic Latin block) could work. I was thinking that something like "non–Basic-Latin Unicode" might be useful. It avoids the confusion of referring to ASCII as a range of

RE: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Goodness, sorry, no, I didn't mean that at all!!! What I meant was that a recognised encoding should be used consistently, regardless of the number of bytes required, and all encodings of Unicode code points are necessarily potentially multi-byte. Single-byte encodings may save a little bit of

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:46:48 +0100 "Tony Jollans" wrote: > These days, it is pretty sloppy coding that cares how many bytes an > encoding of something requires, although there may be many > circumstances where legacy support is required. Wow! Are you saying that code chopping

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

2015-09-21 21:54 GMT+02:00 Tony Jollans : > The actual octets are, of course, used in combinations, but not singly in > any way that requires them to be described in Unicode terms. Or am I > missing > something fundamental? > The term you are looking for are described in the

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

You actually don't need any copy to work with it U+ to U+007F are directly bound to US-ASCII. Unicode describe these characters with character properties (and representative glyphs only for the range U+0020..U+007E; the "C0" controls, in U+ to U+001F and U+007F, have a pseudo-glyph in

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Related question as I am researching this: How can I acquire (cheaply or free) the latest and most official copy of US-ASCII, namely, the version that Unicode references? The Unicode Standard 8.0 refers to the following document: ANSI X3.4: American National Standards Institute. Coded

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

First of all, thank you all for the responses thus far. On 9/20/2015 5:51 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: Hello Sean, On 2015/09/20 23:48, Sean Leonard wrote: What is the most concise term for characters or code points So we already have two different things we might need a term for. [...]