[whatwg] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Jan 30 09:05:47 PST 2010
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
More information about the whatwg