breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 855
No, in the above I was just further emphasizing what this thread was originally about.
OK, fair enough. This discussion started out of someone posting a picture made with IBM Codepage 437 8-bit characters and calling that "ASCII". Then someone else miscorrected that by claiming it was actually an "ANSI" picture. Then someone else mis-mis-corrected that by saying that "ANSI" does not have anything to do with what characters are displayed on the screen, after which you jumped in and corrected that "correction" by pointing out that there are also ANSI standards for character sets... Are we still on the same page here?
BUT your correction was riddled with this unfortunate twist:
breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 856
Randy doubt, out As you yourself noted: "This is *USENET*"... Hence, yes, totally...a spelling mistake is not only grounds to invalidate a single point made in your post, it is grounds to...
"DOS had ANSI.SYS but never really had anything like the ANSI character set."
This prompted me to post my correction, since the above statement is wrong on two counts:
1) First of all, IBM Codepage 437 (which is what MS-DOS is using by default) is a superset of an ANSI X3.4-1968 (aka ASCII-1968), so you can argue that DOS, in fact, had something like an "ANSI character set". ASCII is an "ANSI character set" since it is standardized by ANSI, and IBM Codepage 437 (which is what MS-DOS is using by default) incorporates the ASCII (ANSI X3.4-1968) character positions and their meanings, being downwards compatible with it. (OK, this all borderline nit-picking, but we wanted to drill down to the core of it, didn't we?-)
2) Secondly, in the above quote you were talking about "the ANSI character set", which seems to imply there would only be one character set standardized by ANSI. (OK, I can see you talked about "ANSI standards for character sets" in plural earlier in the same paragraph, but why change it to "the ANSI character set" towards the end, without even specifying which one you mean? That definite article just struck me as odd, especially as you then go on saying: "...systems like Windows, where the ANSI character set gained popularity". There's that definite article again, as if there was only one ANSI character set.)
Well, if you talk about "the ANSI character set", I'm naturally curious about which one of them you consider to be The Most Important One - the one that does not even need its designation to be explicitly mentioned. :)
Yes, I fully agree with all that. But I'm not all that sure if there's something that people would universally recognize as "the ANSI character set" - and that was my original point. :)
Correct again (especially since ASCII is a character set standardized by ANSI, and most of the character sets that are in use today are based on ASCII, one way or the other.)
I was never trying to disprove that point, but the claim about MS-DOS not having anything like "the ANSI character set" and the implied claim of there being "the ANSI character set" in the first place. :)
* * *
I'm restricting the followups to this to message alt.folklore.computers only, since I don't think this part of the thread has much to do with buttembly language or "interactive fiction" any longer. Feel free to add those two groups back if you can find some reasonable connection to them in your (possible) followup.
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups