Callum Lerwick wrote : > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 11:33 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote : > > > > > Le mercredi 11 avril 2007 à 00:29 +0200, Matthias Clasen a écrit : > > > > > > > US-ASCII is a meaningless term. There simply is no 8-bit ASCII > > > > > > Sure but ASCII is frequently abused nevertheless. And human lazyness > > > will "help" people choose the abusive interpretation. > > > > How about referring to "plain ASCII" in the guideline? > > Why has no one mentioned the most obvious solution. Refer to it as > "7-bit ASCII". It has the word "ASCII" in it for ease of understanding, > and further stresses that we mean 7 bits, not 8. It may technically be > redundant, but that's pretty much the point. In the very first reply to the thread, Nicolas suggested just that, and it's what started the discussion :-) Nicolas : "Shouldn't this be clarified as 7-bit ASCII ?" Others : ASCII is necessarily 7-bit!! ... Which brought me to suggest "plain ASCII", as "plain" suggests "no extensions", but doesn't go into any technical details, and it's a terminology I'm quite sure I already came across a few times. Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.20-1.2943.fc6 Load : 0.51 0.27 0.18 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
