• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Alessandro Triglia'" <sandro@m...>,"'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:41:23 +0100

> 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.

Why?

You're claiming that the character which ASCII calls "Capital Letter A" is a
different character from the one which Unicode calls "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
A". (Actually I don't know what ASCII calls it, but it doesn't affect the
argument.) What makes you say that these are different characters? They
aren't different just because different documents give them different names.


Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@t...>

• 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...>