• From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:06:43 +0100 (BST)

In article <006501c80214$2a2a5d00$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.

So if the ASCII characters *are* the same ones that appear in Unicode,
why is it not correct to say that Unicode characters are either ASCII
or non-ASCII characters?

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

• References:
  • RE: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>