In article <006501c80214$2a2a5d00$8901a8c0@aldebaran> you write:
>> >It is not correct to say that a Unicode character can be either an
>> >"ASCII character" or a "non-ASCII character". It is better
>> to say that
>> >some Unicode characters (those with codes below 128) have a
>> >corresponding character in ASCII.
>> On what do you base this assertion? Why do you think the
>> ASCII characters are not the same characters that appear in
>> Unicode?
>That's not what I said nor what I think.
So if the ASCII characters *are* the same ones that appear in Unicode,
why is it not correct to say that Unicode characters are either ASCII
or non-ASCII characters?
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
