On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Dreamcat Four wrote:

> Issue #3595 has been updated by Dreamcat Four.
>=20
>=20
> And lets face it, if Encoding::BINARY were its own seperate encoding =
that shouldnt really hurt anybody. Given the definition of what binary =
data is. If a ruby programmer wants to continue using 8-Bit Ascii =
strings that shouldn't get broken.

Oh, one more thing...there is no such thing as an ASCII-8BIT string that =
isn't data. The high bit values don't map to any characters. There are =
derivative encodings that use these values for other characters, but =
they have their own names like "ISO8859_2". If someone wants an ASCII =
string, they'll use US-ASCII. I'd think it's safe to assume that =
ASCII-8BIT always implies binary data.=