| gabriel rosenkoetter on Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:40:10 +0100 |
|
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 03:24:35PM -0500, William H. Magill wrote:
> That's because ASCII is a standard and is a 7-bit code. Hence that's what
> unix an vi or emacs support.
Rubbish. It's quite possible to type 8-bit characters in vi (use
alt). They don't show up correctly in the editor itself (actually, I
think that versions of vim have various locale support, but I'm not
sure as I don't use bloated editors), but they look fine in many
pagers and will certainly get translated properly by Apache's MIME
encoding provided the system's locale allows for their existence.
> There is no such thing as "extended ASCII" from a standards point of
> view... unless your definition of standard is - whatever Microsoft does.
Not true. There are plenty of standards for this kind of thing, and
many of them are widely accepted. The one which William Shank
discovered in action here, UTF-8, is quite wide-spread (and is the
standard encoding on plenty of OSs' English-language locales,
including Solaris and all three BSDs).
--
~ g r @ eclipsed.net
Attachment:
pgplK7j8ZPrst.pgp
|
|