On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:09:58 -0700, gil wrote: >Isn't "ascii unicode" somewhat oxymoronic?
Well, ASCII *is* Unicode--but if what he were translating were ASCII, it wouldn't need encoding and decoding, since it maps to itself in UTF-8. And 8859-1 is Unicode, too, which is why it's easy to decode from UTF-16, because the UTF-16 encoding just adds a zero byte in front of every 8-bit character. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html "I felt like I was in a ¬R demented Wallace Stevens poem, with food poisoning." Spalding Gray
