On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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.
Your statement seems to contradict those of Edwin Hart and David
Gallardo quoted below. What was exactly the ANSI X.3 standard?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 "Hart, Edwin F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
[...]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 "David Gallardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Best regards
Janusz
--
,
dr hab. Janusz S. Bien, prof. UW
Prof. Janusz S. Bien, Warsaw Uniwersity
http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Na tym koncie czytam i wysylam poczte i wiadomosci offline.
On this account I read/post mail/news offline.
