Seymour J Metz wrote, in part:
>> “AC” is meaningless in a Unicode context.

>In the context of a Unicode code point, "AC" is a perfectly
>unambiguous abbreviation for U+00AC. In any other context,not so much.

No, it’s not: is that a byte x’AC’? Is this big- or little-endian? That’s why 
the U+ syntax exists.

And re which page has the NOT sign at x’aa’:
>See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP850#Character_set

Oy. That one shows that somebody just didn’t think it would ever matter—which 
makes sense, Microsoft was tiny, who knew!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to