Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)

[[e-mail]]

> +1 to Ned's explanation.  His note crossed mine in the posting
> queue and basically address different parts of the issue.
> However, one mini-correction that, IMO, just strengthens both of
> our points...

> Actually, RFC 20 says, in its very first sentence, "...standard
> 7-bit ASCII embedded in an 8 bit byte whose high order bit is
> always 0".   Unless I'm missing something, that is a mapping
> from a CCS (although ASCII defined those integers in Column/Row
> form rather than as single integers) and a CES.

Yep, it's essentially a CES. The only thing missing is the
definition of the US-ASCII charset name.

>  So, possibly
> modulo references to different versions of ASCII (I don't have
> time to check whether the Charset definition for US-ASCII points
> to the same version of US-ASCII that RFC 20 does), RFC 20 and
> US-ASCII are more than just "essentially" the same".

The CCSs appear identical to me. There may be some subtle difference in how
some control is defined in the ANSI documents versus RFC 20, but that's getting
pretty picky.

				Ned