• From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>
• To: "'Richard Tobin'" <richard@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:11:40 -0400

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@i...] 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 16:25
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute 
> accent should require two bytes, right?
> 
> In article <003e01c801fc$9df86ff0$8901a8c0@aldebaran> you write:
> 
> >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.
> 
> On what do you base this assertion?  Why do you think the 
> ASCII characters are not the same characters that appear in 
> Unicode?  


That's not what I said nor what I think.

Alessandro

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)

• References:
  • 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 should require two bytes, right?
    • From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)