Normally the term ASCII just refers to the 7-bit form. What is sometimes called "8-bit ASCII" is the same as ISO Latin 1. If you want to be completely clear, you can say "7-bit ASCII".
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Quick question on terminology use concerning a legacy encoding: > > If one refers to "plain ASCII," or "plain ASCII text" or "... characters," > should this be taken strictly as referring to the 7-bit basic characters, > or might it encompass characters that might appear in an 8-bit character > set (per the so-called "extended ASCII")? > > I've always used the term "ASCII" in the 7-bit, 128 character sense, and > modifying it with "plain" seems to reinforce that sense. (Although "plain > text" in my understanding actually refers to lack of formatting.) > > Reason for asking is encountering a reference to "plain ASCII" describing > text that clearly (by presence of accented characters) would be 8-bit. > > The context is one of many situations where in attaching a document to an > email, it is advisable to include an unformatted text version of the > document in the body of the email. Never mind that the latter is probably > in UTF-8 anyway(?) - the issue here is the terminology. > > TIA for any feedback. > > Don Osborn > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > >
