On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, WeBMartians wrote: > > Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII. > There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters > (less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII "specifications." The same can be > said about the higher end.
Where the interpretation was normative, I've used the term "ANSI_X3.4-1968 (US-ASCII)" and referenced RFC1345. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
