On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 [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. In the computer culture I grew up, 8-bit ASCII meant CP437. Every author called the CP437 table that was available at the end of computer books the ASCII table. --roozbeh
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogat... Tex Texin
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... J%ORG KNAPPEN
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Antoine Leca
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Antoine Leca
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... John Cowan
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Tex Texin
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Michael Everson
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Antoine Leca
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Erland Sommarskog
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2

