[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol

[Julian Reschke]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, WeBMartians wrote:
>> Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII. 
>> There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters 
>> (less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII "specifications." The same can be 
>> said about the higher end.
> 
> Where the interpretation was normative, I've used the term "ANSI_X3.4-1968 
> (US-ASCII)" and referenced RFC1345.

I think you just lost both readability and precision.

Please keep saying "ASCII" or "US-ASCII", and then have a reference to 
the ANSI or ISO spec that actually defines ASCII, such as

    [ANSI.X3-4.1986]  American National Standards Institute, "Coded
                      Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
                      Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

(taken from the relatively recent RFC 5322).

RFC 1345 is a non-maintained, historic informational RFC that's nit 
really a good definition for ASCII. If you disagree, please name a 
single RFC that has been published in the last 20 years that uses RFC 
1345 to reference ASCII (I just searched, and couldn't find any).

Best regards, Julian