No, the 8-bit ANSI standard (ANSI/ISO 8859-1-1987) does not include "ASCII"
as part of its title. It is listed by ANSI as
"8-Bit Single Byte Coded Graphic Character Sets - Part 1: Latin Alphabet No.
1"
So, no, there is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII, though Latin 1 is frequently
referred to as such.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hart, Edwin F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: 8-bit ASCII
> I am unsure if "8-bit ASCII" is a well-defined term. "ASCII" implies
> X3.4-1986 and the 7-bit ASCII code. It was my intention for ISO/IEC
8859-1
> to be the 8-bit ASCII standard. When the US adopted ISO 8859-1 as a US
> standard (ANSI/ISO 8859-1), as editor I asked ANSI to add "(8-bit ASCII)"
to
> the end of the title. I never purchased a copy to see if ANSI did this.
>
> Ed
>
> Edwin F. Hart
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
> 11100 Johns Hopkins Road
> Laurel, MD 20723-6099
> USA
> +1-443-778-6926 (Baltimore area)
> +1-240-228-6926 (Washington, DC area)
> +1-443-778-1093 (fax)
> +1-240-228-1093 (fax)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cathy Wissink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:25
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: RE: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space
> i
>
>
> The people who are responsible for this text have been made aware of the
> problem. This will be updated for WindowsXP.
>
> Cathy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:04 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space
in
>
>
> In a message dated 2001-02-20 04:21:49 Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Even 8-bit ASCII is a correct term meaning ISO-8859-1.
>
> I would question that. Understandable, yes, but not really correct.
>
