024891.html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
 <HEAD>
   <TITLE> [whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
   </TITLE>
   <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
   <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20US-ASCII%20vs.%20ASCII%20in%20Web%20Socket%20Protocol&In-Reply-To=%3C4B6466EB.2090909%40gmx.de%3E">
   <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
   <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
   <LINK REL="Previous"  HREF="024889.html">
   <LINK REL="Next"  HREF="024901.html">
 </HEAD>
 <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
   <H1>[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol</H1>
<!--htdig_noindex-->
    <B>Julian Reschke</B> 
    <A HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20US-ASCII%20vs.%20ASCII%20in%20Web%20Socket%20Protocol&In-Reply-To=%3C4B6466EB.2090909%40gmx.de%3E"
       TITLE="[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol">julian.reschke at gmx.de
       </A><BR>
    <I>Sat Jan 30 09:05:47 PST 2010</I>
    <P><UL>
        <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="024889.html">[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
</A></li>
        <LI>Next message: <A HREF="024901.html">[whatwg] [hybi]  US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
</A></li>
         <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> 
              <a href="date.html#24891">[ date ]</a>
              <a href="thread.html#24891">[ thread ]</a>
              <a href="subject.html#24891">[ subject ]</a>
              <a href="author.html#24891">[ author ]</a>
         </LI>
       </UL>
    <HR>  
<!--/htdig_noindex-->
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Ian Hickson wrote:
&gt;<i> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, WeBMartians wrote:
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII. 
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters 
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> (less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII &quot;specifications.&quot; The same can be 
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> said about the higher end.
</I>&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> Where the interpretation was normative, I've used the term &quot;ANSI_X3.4-1968 
</I>&gt;<i> (US-ASCII)&quot; and referenced RFC1345.
</I>
I think you just lost both readability and precision.

Please keep saying &quot;ASCII&quot; or &quot;US-ASCII&quot;, and then have a reference to 
the ANSI or ISO spec that actually defines ASCII, such as

    [ANSI.X3-4.1986]  American National Standards Institute, &quot;Coded
                      Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
                      Information Interchange&quot;, ANSI X3.4, 1986.

(taken from the relatively recent RFC 5322).

RFC 1345 is a non-maintained, historic informational RFC that's nit 
really a good definition for ASCII. If you disagree, please name a 
single RFC that has been published in the last 20 years that uses RFC 
1345 to reference ASCII (I just searched, and couldn't find any).

Best regards, Julian
</PRE>

<!--endarticle-->
<!--htdig_noindex-->
    <HR>
    <P><UL>
        <!--threads-->
	<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="024889.html">[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
</A></li>
	<LI>Next message: <A HREF="024901.html">[whatwg] [hybi]  US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
</A></li>
         <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> 
              <a href="date.html#24891">[ date ]</a>
              <a href="thread.html#24891">[ thread ]</a>
              <a href="subject.html#24891">[ subject ]</a>
              <a href="author.html#24891">[ author ]</a>
         </LI>
       </UL>

<hr>
<a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org">More information about the whatwg
mailing list</a><br>
<!--/htdig_noindex-->
</body></html>

/lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-January/024891.html