Pretty much any EBCDIC code page is superior to ASCII. As to what to call 8-bit 
code pages, I'd suggest using the term" 8-bit code page" and reserving the term 
"ASCII" for ASCII. Especially if you find yourself having to transfer data 
among machines using different code pages.

I insist on precision because of having been burnt too many times by people who 
didn't. I notice that there has been a lot of traffic here relating to code 
pages, and adding to the confusion doesn't help.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <> on behalf 
of Paul Gilmartin <>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

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:

Can you suggest a more convenient term encompassing the CCSIDs called "ASCII" on
that page, less cumbersome than "ASCII-based character set" or "ASCII 
used once in that document?

-- gil

Reply via email to