- From: WeBMartians <webmartians@verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:52:12 -0500
Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII. There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters (less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII "specifications." The same can be said about the higher end. === Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Yuzo Fujishima wrote: > >> I see both "US-ASCII" and "ASCII" are used in: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-54 >> >> If they mean the same thing, one should be used consistently. >> >> In the document, US-ASCII seems to mean encoding while ASCII mean >> charset. Is this common? (I guess US-ASCII is commonly considered as an >> alias for ASCII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII#Aliases ) >> > > I've changed the spec to use "ASCII" consistently. > > Cheers, >
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 04:52:12 UTC