> The proper term for those characters is non-ASCII, since they are not, > in fact, ASCII. Understanding this fact first is the basis for > understanding text encodings in general. People who refer to "high > ASCII" usually are under the mistaken belief that there is a single > official 256-character version of ASCII, and then don't understand why > a code point in this mythical character set doesn't always generate > the > same character.
I think we have had this discussion several times over the years, and I think your claim is valid in the parts of the world where english is the native language. In other parts of the world, like in Sweden where I live, "high ASCII" is very likely to be a perfectly well understood term. And since we have had to deal with different character sets since forever, we are very well aware of the different types of "high ASCII" available. (Your claim is, of course, formally 100% correct) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
