Jungshik Shin scripsit: > As is often the case, Unicode experts are not necessarily experts on > 'legacy' character sets and encodings. The 'official' name of 'ASCII' is > ANSI X3.4-1968 or ISO 646 (US). While dispelling myths about Unicode, > I'm afraid you're spreading misinformation about what came before it. > The sentence that 'ANSI pushed this scope ... represents 256 characters' > is misleading. ANSI has nothing to do with various single, double, > triple byte character sets that make up single and multibyte character > encodings. They're devised and published by national and international > standard organizations as well as various vendors. Perhaps, you'd better > just get rid of the sentence 'ANSI pushed ... providing backward > compatibility with ASCII'.
Like it or not, "ANSI" has two meanings now: the American National Standards Institute and a generic term for an 8-bit Windows codepage. Similarly, "OEM" means both an original equipment manufacturer and an 8-bit PC-DOS codepage. -- "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously [EMAIL PROTECTED] over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
