|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 06/01/07 14:15
Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:
> As I recall there is in fact an 'extended ASCII' existing.
That's because you have read bogus information. That was understandable - as
was the wrong idea about the em unit - until correct information was given.
> Again: the information about the 'extended ASCII' is not
> that 'bogus' as you are calling it
It definitely is. Common people are excused for their ignorance on this
issue, and on the em unit issue, but people who write references are not.
And ignorance stops being excusable at the point where you start and keep
arguing, without any factual grounds, in public against correct information.
The ASCII code is defined by an American National Standard. There is only
one ASCII standard in force. I have actually acquired and read it. Have you?
What people call "extended ASCII" is just _different_ 8-bit codes, and none
of them carries "ASCII" in their name. This is where the wrong information
becomes harmful and not just ignorance: people will act as if their
references to "extended ASCII" referred to one specific code.
(Similarly, thinking that the em unit is the width of "M" - without ever
bothering to check how wide "M" is in em units - is just a piece of common
ignorance _until_ you start setting things up in a manner that is based on
the misconception. For example, it would be logical to set width: 30em for a
text input field if you have set its font to monospace and want it to be 30
characters wide. Quite logical, since all characters have equal width there.
Just the premise about em being the width of "M" is completely wrong.)
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|