Le 23 avr. 07 à 21:17 Soir, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: > On Apr 23, 2007, at 16:52 UTC, Arnaud Nicolet wrote: > >> Le 23 avr. 07 à 18:43 Soir, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: >> >>> No, legacy encodings were defined all over the world. Unicode was >>> defined by an international consortium. >> >> Thank you. >> I wonder, then, why those encodings also include the ASCII part. > > Because that's very convenient. ASCII came first, and there was a lot > of ASCII data around. When designing a new encoding, if you make it a > superset of ASCII, then all that older data is still valid in your new > encoding. > >> Should not the ASCII be an independent encoding? > > It is. But pretty much any language has at least occasional need for > those ASCII characters. So they need to be someplace, and they might > as well be in the same place as they are in the ASCII table.
Thanks. I remember there is an encoding named "ASCII". I'm curious to discover what is, in that encoding, the character numbered 128 (because I assume the ASCII encoding provided by RB has that extra 8th bit). _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
