Erik writes: > On 25/05/16 11:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Wednesday 25 May 2016 19:10, Christopher Reimer wrote: >> >>> Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 >>> was all we had for ASCII. >> >> It really, truly wasn't. But you can be forgiven for not knowing >> that, since until the rise of the public Internet most people weren't >> exposed to more than one code page or encoding, and it was incredibly >> common for people to call *any* encoding "ASCII". > > Indeed - at that time, I was working with COBOL on an IBM S/370. On > that system, we used EBCDIC ASCII. That was the wierdest ASCII of all > <ducks> ;)
UTF-8 ASCII is nice. UTF-16 ASCII is weird. Wierd. Probably all right in an environment that is otherwise set to use UTF-16. Nothing is as weird as a mix of different encodings of a foreign script in the same "plain text" file, said to be "Unicode". <shudder/> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
