• From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>
• To: "'Bill Kearney'" <wkearney99@h...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:11:48 -0400

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Kearney [mailto:wkearney99@h...] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 14:43
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute 
> accent should require two bytes, right?
> 
> Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> > It is not correct to say that a Unicode character can be either an 
> > "ASCII character" or a "non-ASCII character".  It is better to say 
> > that some Unicode characters (those with codes below 128) have a 
> > corresponding character in ASCII.
> >   
> Who said anything about ASCII?  That just muddies up the water. 


The whole discussion is about Unicode and ASCII!  It started with the
following sentence in Roger's document:  "Here is a simple XML document.
Most of its characters are ASCII, but there is one non-ASCII character, the
é character"

Alessandro

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent shouldrequire two bytes, right?
    • From: Bill Kearney <wkearney99@h...>

• References:
  • UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>
  • Re: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent shouldrequire two bytes, right?
    • From: Bill Kearney <wkearney99@h...>