Fwd: Terminology question re ASCII

Sorry, should have cc:d the list. Assume original mail was from a list
member.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Vance <cjsvance_at_gmail.com>
Date: 29 October 2013 16:58
Subject: Re: Terminology question re ASCII
To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com>

Of course, once you have 8-bit characters in the upper range from 0x80 up,
you can only know intrinsically that it's not actually ASCII, and that
anybody who says it is, is probably lying.

You can only determine the actual character set used from extrinsic
information. Is the 8th bit just parity? Is it a Microsoft set with those
graphical things? Is it one of the Latin-N sets (which one)? EBCDIC?
Something else?

On 29 October 2013 16:38, Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com> wrote:

> Normally the term ASCII just refers to the 7-bit form. What is sometimes
> called "8-bit ASCII" is the same as ISO Latin 1. If you want to be
> completely clear, you can say "7-bit ASCII".
>
>
> Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
> *
> *
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
> **
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:12 AM, <dzo_at_bisharat.net> wrote:
>
>> Quick question on terminology use concerning a legacy encoding:
>>
>> If one refers to "plain ASCII," or "plain ASCII text" or "...
>> characters," should this be taken strictly as referring to the 7-bit basic
>> characters, or might it encompass characters that might appear in an 8-bit
>> character set (per the so-called "extended ASCII")?
>>
>> I've always used the term "ASCII" in the 7-bit, 128 character sense, and
>> modifying it with "plain" seems to reinforce that sense. (Although "plain
>> text" in my understanding actually refers to lack of formatting.)
>>
>> Reason for asking is encountering a reference to "plain ASCII" describing
>> text that clearly (by presence of accented characters) would be 8-bit.
>>
>> The context is one of many situations where in attaching a document to an
>> email, it is advisable to include an unformatted text version of the
>> document in the body of the email. Never mind that the latter is probably
>> in UTF-8 anyway(?) - the issue here is the terminology.
>>
>> TIA for any feedback.
>>
>> Don Osborn
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Christopher Vance
-- 
Christopher Vance