On Fri, 05 Feb 1993 12:00:58 EST, Masataka Ohta said:
The result is a standard which is vague enough
about the appearance of the glyphs that it is legitimate to print code 41
(exclamation point) as or-bar and code 94 (circumflex) as not-sign.
I'm afraid that RFC1345 defines ASCII code point 41 (octal) as an
exclamation mark and 94 (decimal) circumflex accent.
Just to double check, we're talking about:
RFC1345 Simonsen, K. Character Mnemonics & Character Sets. 1992 June; 103 p.
(Format: TXT=249738 bytes)
Correct?
Now, I realize that Masataka Ohta is posting from in Japan, and
the news may have gotten garbled crossing the big puddle, but
I was not aware that the American National Standards Institute
had accepted this work as an ANSI Standard.
If we're going to argue about what ASCII is, we better work from
the original source (ANSI X3.4 and make sure you say -68 or -86
on that...) -- citing RFC1345 only proves that Keld's interpretation
of ANSI X3.4 is that codepoint 41 octal is an exclamation point.
If we insist on being pendantic, let's be thorough about it.
/Valdis