Talk:Fieldata

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Lozenge?

Character #62 is depicted as ¤ (currency sign), but called lozenge. Shouldn't it be ◊ U+25CA LOZENGE ? What was the glyph looking like in original computer output? rado 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the original standard, but the glyph used in Mackenzie's book for the lozenge is that of the "square lozenge" ⌑ (U+2311). He doesn't, however, mention it in conjunction with FIELDATA specifically.

Nevertheless I have edited the article to now show the "square lozenge" ⌑ symbol instead of the "currency symbol" ¤.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huge influence

Much of the Fieldata system was the specifications for the format the data would take, leading to a character set that would be a huge influence on ASCII a few years later.

What is this huge influce Fieldata had on ASCII? --Abdull 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in table?

A way better article about FIELDATA can be found here: http://www.wps.com/projects/codes/index.html#FIELDATA Note also how the code tables differ. -- 212.213.204.99 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is it 6 bits or 7?

Make your mind up - either it's 6 bits (fitting 6 characters into a 36-bit word) with 64 code points, maybe 126 if there's a page-switch character ... or it's 7 (1+2+4, 128 codes, 5 characters in 35 bits with one left over). The page currently claims 6 but shows a 7-bit charset with a "supervisory bit", whatever that might be. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are two versions? 6-bit Fieldata without the "supervisory bit" (uppercase chars only), and 7-bit Fieldata with the "supervisory bit", enabling lowercase. Just an educated guess. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]