OK -- From the last few messages, plus some off-list messages, we can
see that the original definition was indeed ANSI X3.4, per the excerpt
from RFC822.
ANSI. "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange," X3.4.
American National Standards Institute: New York (1968). Also
in: Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., "ARPANET Protocol Hand-
book", NIC 7104.
Now then, RFC822 will never be changed from what it says, so we could
easily refer to 822ascii and be entirely precise in RFC822bis by
reference to this excerpted section of RFC822. It is also easy to see
how it got the informal code of USascii.
So, I will vote for either USascii or 822ascii, in the interests of
being totally precise about what we mean. We should also cite it the
same way in RFC822bis as in RFC822. That should not leave any wiggle
room for anyone to miss what is intended.
I will object to just using "ascii" because there seems to be a
tendency for "ascii" to take on various shades of informal meaning
among the populace.
e.g., "8-bit ascii" has been mentioned here, along with other sorts of
ascii in Europe, etc. Are there other versions of "ascii" in fact, or
are these all just some sort of techno-mythology?
I expect USascii to win the clarity of expression award.
Fine by me...\Stef