[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments & Reactions to the draft

1991-05-22 11:34:15
Let me carry Randall's and Stef's argument one step further.  

"MAILASCII" really isn't ASCII, either.  It is a carefully chosen 
character collection, chosen for invariance across several character 
sets.  Its relationship with ASCII is that, for the characters it does 
have, it uses the same codings as ASCII, but, by its nature, it also 
uses the same codings as all of the ISO646 national variations and a few 
other things.

So, if we need one of these things (I think we probably do, but I'd like 
to keep the two discussions separate), let's choose a name that is 
confusion-reducing, rather than confusion-creating.  The following would 
be plausible candidates:
Awful, aren't they?  But no one is going to look at those and confuse 
them with X3.4 ASCII (aka US-ASCII), or what has sometimes been called 
ISCII (ISOSCII?), which are usually IS 8859 varients but somes basic 
version ("invariant") ISO646.
   Probably other, equally awful, names would do as well.

  This might also help us remember that the normative 822 character set 
is [US]ASCII, not MAILCII/INVARCII, or even, in the tradition of a side 
discussion, Nathaniel-CII.  :-)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>