> If a term were invented, you'd generally have to explain it, and you would do better just to remind readers what ASCII is.
+1 Peter Sent from Outlook Mail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> for Windows 10 From: Richard Wordingham Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:51 AM To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:52:29 +0000 Peter Constable <peter...@microsoft.com> wrote: > You already have been using "non-ASCII Unicode", which is about as > concise and sufficiently accurate as you'll get. There's no term > specifically defined in any standard or conventionally used for this. As to standards, UTS#18 'Unicode Regular Expression' Requirement RL1.2 requires the support of the 'property' it calls 'ASCII', which is defined in Section 1.2.1 as the property of being in the range U+0000 to U+007F. This implicitly makes 'not ASCII' a derived property held by all the other codepoints. If you fear that your audience will think that Latin-1 characters are ASCII, you'll just have to go for the clumsy 'not 7-bit ASCII' and accept that there isn't an unambiguous way in English of turning that into an adjective or noun. If a term were invented, you'd generally have to explain it, and you would do better just to remind readers what ASCII is. Richard.
