Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: > From: "Simon Butcher" <pickle at alien dot net dot au> >> However personally, when dealing with a octet, or an arbitrary number >> of octets, I believe the byte-pictures would be much easier to deal >> with (especially when dealing with a lot of raw data). > > Except that it would require 256 new codepoints, instead of just 6 for > the proposed HEX DIGIT characters. > ... > What you propose is NOT a complementary set of digits for base 16, but > a complete new set of numbers in base 256, so that a glyph like [00] > will be displayed instead of just 0 (this is a disunification of all > the existing ASCII digits, as if it was a new script using its own > numbering system)...
The issue of encoding single hex digits and the issue of encoding "byte pictures" consisting of pairs of hex digits (enclosed in a box or something) are completely separate. One should not be imagined to be an alternative to the other. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
