1. 4
  1.  

  2. 3

    The first half is good.

    The second half is not ASCII, it’s an encoding made up by IBM and used in DOS and Windows. This is one of many nonstandard “extended ASCII”s — others include MacRoman, the Commodore PET & 64 graphic characters, various European encodings… all of which have mostly been obsoleted by UTF-8.

    Anyway, lot of people from a Windows background tend to believe that CP-1252 is somehow standard ASCII, and I’ve seen this lead to a lot of text mangling as data moves between platforms. I wish people would stop spreading this misconception.

    1. 1

      A certain large email provider will treat all ISO-8859 character sets as if it’s ISO-8859-1/CP-1252 “extended ASCII”, which of course works wonderful if you use ISO-8859-8 to write your emails in Hebrew… The worst part is that they refused to fix it after I reported it; making sure emails aren’t garbled isn’t a priority it seems 🤷 And yes, we should all be using UTF-8 and ISO-8859-8 is probably fairly rare, but we did have one customer use it and it takes a long time for all software to be updated, and reading the Content-Type header really isn’t that hard.