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_188.8.131.52/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