Travis Crump wrote:
> >> It seems silly to refer to an 8-bit international standard when they
are
> >> in fact in UTF-8, from 2660-2667.
> >
> > Are those supposed to be the suit symbols in your sentence? I'm
reading
> > your message on a Mac running the latest OS X and MT-Newswatcher, and
I
> > don't see anything remotely like a suit symbol there.
> >
>
> Sorry, my bad, I am an idiot, UTF-8 uses more than 8 bits. 8 bits
> refers to ascii which is of course what you should use, and what I do
> usually use.
UTF-8 isn't a character set. It's a standard way of encoding a
character set that may be a 16- or 32-bit character set, when 8-bit
bytes are the unit used for transmitting the data. Yes, I was pretty
much referring to ASCII, although ASCII is really just a 7-bit
character set; I believe that the correct names for 8-bit character
sets that use the ASCII meanings for 0..127 and something else in the
128..255 positions are ISO-8859-n for some number n, with ISO-8859-1
(also called Latin-1) using letters and other symbols most appropriate
for Western European languages, and other variants (ISO-8859-2, etc.)
set up for Eastern European, Greek, Cyrillic, and other alphabets. In
any case, the funny characters that I sometimes see are, I believe, the
Latin-1 characters for the codes that MS-DOS uses for suit symbols.
Or something like that.
-- Adam
|
