On 2018-02-09, at 13:32:29, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I would argue that EBCDIC is intrinsically superior to ASCII. I would also
> argue that it is not intrinsically superior to, e.g., ISO-8859-15.
>
Let's not compare an apple to an orange grove. I know you insist on precision;
that ASCII is a 7-bit character set and ISO-8859-15 is a particular 8-bit
superset of ASCII.
But what's EBCDIC? It's at least a family of character sets. The one that
corresponds closely to ISO-8859-15 is probably IBM1148. But "ASCII" is widely
used casually for ASCII-based character sets. See:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSB23S_1.1.0.14/gtpa2/char51.html
Can you suggest a more convenient term encompassing the CCSIDs called "ASCII" on
that page, less cumbersome than "ASCII-based character set" or "ASCII
compatible"
used once in that document?
-- gil
