Settings

The page will reload to apply your changes.
Theme

ASCII Art Font

ASCII Art Menu

Original Usenet message from alt.ascii-art, 13 Feb 2000.
Re: Standard codes (out of topic !?)

Re: Standard codes (out of topic !?)

Neil Franklin wrote:

> "Meph" <UZS...@uni-bonn.de> writes:
> >
> > 1963 ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange)
> > - specified as 7-bit code for telecommunication and data exchange
> > - 100 of 128 positions are used (only upper case)
> 
> Prepend this with: U.S./AT&T Teletype code. Existant at least in 1953
> (I have used a device built then). Had 64 printable characters (codes
> 32-95) identical with todays ASCII with a few substitution (no. 95 (_)
> was then a leftwards facing arrow, no. 94 (^) was an actual upwards
> facing arrow, possibly others I do not know of).

Was this the 1st ASCII-alike 7-bit code, to your knowledge? (meaning:
were the 0's and 1's arranged in the same order in US/AT&T as in ASCII?)

TMK (at least in the early days) teletypes used 5-bit Baudot-code,
"bracking" each sign with an independent start- and stop-element, thus
using 7 bits rather bluntly. And not being able to transmit a lowercase
char, cos' of being Baudot...

> > 1965 ECMA-6 (European National Standards Institute, Genf)
> 
> European Computer Manufacturers Association, actually.
> 
> ENSI does not exist, there exists an ETSI European Telecommunications
> Standards Institute you may be confusing this with.

Which 1 of these acronyms resides in Geneva?

> > 1981 IBM Codepage 437
> > - IBM uses the 8 bit and extended the code to 256 positions
> 
> 8 bit, but neither a predecessor to ISO-8859 (that is why DOS texts
> make such a mess on Usenet), nor the first 8bit code. The honour of
> both of those goes AFAIK to an DEC character set from the mid/late
> 1970s (VT52 or VT100 terminal character set).

Just pondering: "Telegraph was 5-bit, teletype went 7-bit, computers
called for 8-bit." Does this make any sense?

> > 1986 ISO 8859-1, called Latin-1
> > - it becomes international standard

AFAIK the purpose of ISO 8859 was to put non-Americanenglish chars in
the #128-#255 range (there was no room for weird european a's, o's and
u's in #0-#127). That's why American, English, Dutch, etc. keyboards
deal with Latin-1,.. and German, Hungarian, (Taiwanese??!) keyboards,
for example, are connected to a different ISO 8859(-?) character set.
All founded on ASCII, though.

> > - identically with IBM Codepage 819 and  850
> 
> More likely those IBM Codepages are the names of their ISO implementations.
>
>
> > - used in Windows with some additional characters
> 
> Particulartly 128-159, which are empty in ISO, but also quite a few
> other random changes that foul up 8bit exchanges (that is why Windows
> texts make such a mess on Usenet).

Not random. On purpose! The ISO-committee that dealt with the problem of
language-specific chars in 1986 didn't (and couldn't) foresee that nowadays
those exotic tribes gather on the Usenet and W3 (and try to communicate in
some sort of a 7-bit slang).

> > (it exists no code   called ANSI !)

ANSI X3.4?

> The name ANSI properly refers to a set of terminal control codes
> (function key reporting, cursor positioning, font switsching etc)
> derived from the DEC VT100 terminal code.
>
> What is today often misscalled ANSI is the PC/MS-DOS character set,
> which is actually pure IBM Codepage 437.

True, they don't know what they're talking about, but they provide good cracks.

> > 1987 Unicode (UCS)
> > - developed by Apple and Xerox
> 
> Actually derived from an Xerox character set, with additions by Apple
> and others.
> 
> 
> > - at the moment only used by Windows NT and Java
> 
> And Linux (as alternative to ISO8859-1, the default).
> 
> 
> > 1992 ISO/IEC 10646-1
> > - it becomes international standard
> 
> Actually ISO10646 is a 32 bit code with Unicode as its codes 0-65535.
> 
> Also ISO10646 defines UTF-8, a coding that uses single bytes. 1 byte
> for chars 0-127 (= ASCII), 2 bytes for 128-2047, 3 bytes for
> 2048-65535 ... until max 6 bytes.


Amen


--
where's the art?

Original message headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f996b,4f3c981b56494d92
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
From: mic@dataweb.BOUNCE_SPAM.nl (miK)
Subject: Re: Standard codes  (out of topic !?)
Date: 2000/02/13
Message-ID: <38a...@NEWS.DATAWEB.NL>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585264222
References: <883uu3$1he2$1...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de> <6uw...@chonsp.franklin.ch>
X-Complaints-To: abu...@nl.uu.net
X-Trace: porthos.nl.uu.net 950434699 7567 193.78.237.129 (13 Feb 2000 09:38:19 GMT)
Organization: UUNET-NL (http://www.nl.uu.net)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Feb 2000 09:38:19 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art
About this message. This message was posted publicly to the newsgroup alt.ascii-art in 2000 and is mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked. The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can. Are you the author? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.

Report this message

Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.

Help classify this post