> Don't get technical on me, motherfuton. > > If you want a word for this, you would say they are transcodings of each > other.
*LOSSLESS* transcodings >> 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. Thank you Master Yoda for imparting some of your uni-knowledge.
