Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

[Peter Constable]

> If a term were invented, you'd generally have to explain it, and you

would do better just to remind readers what ASCII is.



+1





Peter

Sent from Outlook Mail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> for Windows 10





From: Richard Wordingham
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:51 AM
To: unicode at unicode.org
Subject: Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters


On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:52:29 +0000
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:

> You already have been using "non-ASCII Unicode", which is about as
> concise and sufficiently accurate as you'll get. There's no term
> specifically defined in any standard or conventionally used for this.

As to standards, UTS#18 'Unicode Regular Expression' Requirement RL1.2
requires the support of the 'property' it calls 'ASCII', which is
defined in Section 1.2.1 as the property of being in the range U+0000 to
U+007F. This implicitly makes 'not ASCII' a derived property held by all
the other codepoints. If you fear that your audience will think that
Latin-1 characters are ASCII, you'll just have to go for the clumsy
'not 7-bit ASCII'  and accept that there isn't an unambiguous way in
English of turning that into an adjective or noun.

If a term were invented, you'd generally have to explain it, and you
would do better just to remind readers what ASCII is.

Richard.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20150922/1ae72900/attachment.html>