Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Mark Davis schrieb: This is just a confusion among the hoi polloi. And here we have yet another example: hoi is Greek for the (hoi polloi = the many). Best wishes, Otto Stolz
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Thanks. I have gotten several messages from people who didn't get the joke; that the sentence itself was an example of just the sorts of redundancy being discussed. Mark - Original Message - From: Otto Stolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 08:21 Subject: Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences) Mark Davis schrieb: This is just a confusion among the hoi polloi. And here we have yet another example: hoi is Greek for the (hoi polloi = the many). Best wishes, Otto Stolz
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Tim Greenwood wrote: Is that like the 'Please RSVP' that I see all too often? Or should that not be excused? Or -- my own personal favorite -- in the year AD 2004.
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
At 17:38 -0800 2004-12-10, Asmus Freytag wrote: Other examples of apparent redundancy, are Cakes - Keks (German), plural Kekse Baby - bebis (Swedish), plural bebissar and there are many more such examples. In Ireland sometime in the early nineties, the Allied Irish Bank became AIB Bank, the Allied Irish Bank Bank. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Am 11.12.2004 um 04:32 schrieb Clark Cox: There are always the classics: ATM Machine and PIN Number Here in germany, they say ASCII-Code. :-) Johannes
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
On 11/12/2004 02:29, Mark Davis wrote: This is just a confusion among the hoi polloi. Mark But such things happen not just among the German and Swedish polloi, but even in the crowning heights of the English language. The word cherubims is used many times in the King James Bible and at least once in Shakespeare. And the hoi polloi is a similar confusion in itself, for hoi is the Greek definite article. Peter ... Other examples of apparent redundancy, are Cakes - Keks (German), plural Kekse Baby - bebis (Swedish), plural bebissar and there are many more such examples. A./ -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote: In Ireland sometime in the early nineties, the Allied Irish Bank became AIB Bank, the Allied Irish Bank Bank. Israel Discount Bank of New York regularly refers to itself as IDB Bank. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
If any criticism was present, it referred to the redundant US- prefix in US-ASCII, not to Unicode, and even that wasn't really criticism, just my lack of understanding /why/. In addition to Doug's historical clarification, you need to understand this as a perfectly normal linguistic process of attributive disambiguation of a term which had grown ambiguous in usage. Many, many people using computers, including some software engineers, don't even know what the acronym ASCII stands for, or that the A was derived from American originally. ASCII proliferated into parlance meaning basically the default 7- or 8-bit character set of personal computers (== note that that term itself is now archaic and disappearing), and in particular the common set of characters printed on most keycaps. In some contexts, ASCII meant and still means not EBCDIC. US-ASCII was invented as a term, I believe, in part to tie usage back explicitly to ANSI X 3.4, whose repertoire is identical to U+..U+007F, including the implied usage of a particular set of ISO 6429 controls for C0 ... and opposed to ISO 646 IRV, or any particular national variant of ISO 646, including even the US variant of ISO 646, or Code Page 437, or some other unspecified ASCII code page. --Ken
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:06:12 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition to Doug's historical clarification, you need to understand this as a perfectly normal linguistic process of attributive disambiguation of a term which had grown ambiguous in usage. Is that like the 'Please RSVP' that I see all too often? Or should that not be excused? - Tim
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Tim Greenwood asked: ... a perfectly normal linguistic process of attributive disambiguation of a term which had grown ambiguous in usage. Is that like the 'Please RSVP' that I see all too often? Or should that not be excused? *grins* Well, technically, that is not a case of attributive disambiguation, but rather ignorant redundancy. On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? --Ken
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Kenneth Whistler scripsit: On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? It's also pervasive in English: SALT talks, OPEC countries (or nations), Missisippi River, Gobi Desert. -- [T]he Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan use characters, nor does it encode logoshttp://www.reutershealth.com or graphics. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
This is just a confusion among the hoi polloi. Mark - Original Message - From: Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 17:38 Subject: Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences) At 12:50 PM 12/10/2004, Kenneth Whistler wrote: Tim Greenwood asked: ... a perfectly normal linguistic process of attributive disambiguation of a term which had grown ambiguous in usage. Is that like the 'Please RSVP' that I see all too often? Or should that not be excused? *grins* Well, technically, that is not a case of attributive disambiguation, but rather ignorant redundancy. On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? Other examples of apparent redundancy, are Cakes - Keks (German), plural Kekse Baby - bebis (Swedish), plural bebissar and there are many more such examples. A./
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
At 12:50 PM 12/10/2004, Kenneth Whistler wrote: Tim Greenwood asked: ... a perfectly normal linguistic process of attributive disambiguation of a term which had grown ambiguous in usage. Is that like the 'Please RSVP' that I see all too often? Or should that not be excused? *grins* Well, technically, that is not a case of attributive disambiguation, but rather ignorant redundancy. On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? Other examples of apparent redundancy, are Cakes - Keks (German), plural Kekse Baby - bebis (Swedish), plural bebissar and there are many more such examples. A./
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:28:59 -0800, Michael (michka) Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? We actually know of a person here who used to refer to a bigwig guest as a Very VIP person. I don't think she was corrected for some time -- its entertaining to let them find out on their own, sometimes There are always the classics: ATM Machine and PIN Number -- Clark S. Cox III [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.livejournal.com/users/clarkcox3/ http://homepage.mac.com/clarkcox3/
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the other hand, for many English speakers, RSVP is simply learned as an unanalyzed verb, pronounced aressveepee, meaning send a response to this message. And to castigate such speakers for politely prepending a please to that verb is a little too much, don't you think? We actually know of a person here who used to refer to a bigwig guest as a Very VIP person. I don't think she was corrected for some time -- its entertaining to let them find out on their own, sometimes MichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead Globalization Infrastructure, Fonts, and Tools Microsoft Windows International Division
US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Arcane Jill arcanejill at ramonsky dot com wrote: [OFF TOPIC] Why do so many people call it US ASCII anyway? Since ASCII comprises that subset of Unicode from U+ to U+007F, it is not clear to me in what way US-ASCII is different from ASCII. It's bad enough for us non-Americans that the A in ASCII already stands for American, but to stick US on the front as well is just As a note of historical trivia, today's US-ASCII isn't even the same character set as the original USASCII. That was the 1965 version of ASCII, which was the first to add support for lowercase letters (the original 1963 version left those code points empty), but had a few differences from the final 1967 version. I think @ at 0x40 and ` 0x60 may have been swapped, and the 1965 version may have still had an up-arrow and left-arrow. (Sorry, I can't find my copy of Mackenzie right now.) It was named USASCII because at the time, the American standardization body was called the United States of American Standards Association (USASA), having just changed from ASA which had contributed to the original name ASCII. The name was changed to ANSI shortly thereafter, but as often told, it was decided not to re-rename the character set to ANSCII. Today's US-ASCII is so called because of the proliferation of national variants of ISO 646, but since those have largely disappeared -- they have, haven't they? -- the US- does seem redundant. Anyway, back to the discussion on US-Unicode... I hope that's just a joke, and not intended to refer to some perceived American bias in Unicode... -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RE: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
Yes, of course it was a joke. Rest assured, if I perceive any kind of bias in Unicode, I shall say so directly and unambiguously. From my perspective (which is /itself/ biased by my cultural upbringing) I perceive no bias, so let's just drop that. I'll try to remember to use a smiley next time. :-) Oh, and thanks for the interesting historical character set info. Jill -Original Message- From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 December 2004 16:28 To: Unicode Mailing List Cc: Arcane Jill Subject: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences) I hope that's just a joke, and not intended to refer to some perceived American bias in Unicode...
Re: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences)
- Original Message - From: Arcane Jill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Unicode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:17 AM Subject: RE: US-ASCII (was: Re: Invalid UTF-8 sequences) Yes, of course it was a joke. Rest assured, if I perceive any kind of bias in Unicode, I shall say so directly and unambiguously. From my perspective (which is /itself/ biased by my cultural upbringing) I perceive no bias, so let's just drop that. What I /intended/ to try to convey was the feeling that, to my British ears, the habit of referring to ASCII as US-ASCII sounds ridiculous, in exactly the same way that referring to Unicode as US-Unicode would sound ridiculous. So it was actually more like an analogy than a joke. If any criticism was present, it referred to the redundant US- prefix in US-ASCII, not to Unicode, and even that wasn't really criticism, just my lack of understanding /why/. Hope that's now clear. Jill
