Date: Sun, 24.06.12 17:33
a neat little test o
On Saturday June 23 2012 22:57, you wrote to Joe Delahaye:
>> There is no such thing as "extended ASCII". It is bogus. 8 bit
>> characters yes, "extended ASCII" no. It is that simple.
JD>> Of course there is. Extended ASCII has been around for years.
DS> I know it, you know it and he knows it -- he just will not admit it.
What he means is that the term "extended ASCII" is not correct. I know it is
(has been) in widespread use, but he is right, it is incorrect. Character sets
that consist of the ASCII set extended with 127 or 91 characters with the
highest bit set have been in use for a long time, but it is technically
incorrect to call them "high ASCII" or "extended ASCII".
JD>> His message displayed properly on my system. Your quote of it and
JD>> your attempt at correcting it, are both gibberish here.
DS> That must be because he is trying to use the wrong code page instead
DS> of the one that is default on the majority of the systems.
If we restrict it to systems in use for reading and writing Fidonet messages,
and if what you have in mind is code page 437, then you are most likely in
error. The majority of systems default to CP866 or KOI8-R. Third and fourth
place may be CP850 and LATIN-1.
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)