Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space in

[John Cowan]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


>>  Even 8-bit ASCII is a correct term meaning ISO-8859-1.
> 
> I would question that.  Understandable, yes, but not really correct.

No, it *is* correct.  ANSI X.3 (which has a new name these days) in fact
did define an 8-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange,
being exactly the same as ISO 8859-1.

Of course, that does not affect the definition of the 7-bit American
Standard Code.

 
> I thought "Roman" was simply an alternate word for "Latin," but Jorg is 
> correct.  This is also an error.

It's too strong to call it an error.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein