On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:33:14AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > Well technically... If their both valid encodings of unicode, then > they're both valid encodings of each other. Just because you're > concerned about how the represent unicode doesn't mean we can't define > that ISO-8859-1's encoding table isn't encoding utf-8 representations > of code points. Granted this gets into up is down and left is right > territory.
Don't get technical on me, motherfuton. If you want a word for this, you would say they are transcodings of each other. > But you started it when saying that something that > represents a subset of unicode is a valid encoding. Which its not. > lrn2nyquistfrequency fool! US-ASCII encoded an extremely limited subset of Unicode. US-ASCII is a perfectly valid encoding of Unicode. Learn to Unicode your face, up in that. Kindest regards, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
