All I really need is something reversible, and STANDARD is not. I'm planning to use 10470819. Anyway, I was just polling the list to see if anyone had made such a switch and if so, how it went. I don't really want to elaborate beyond that. Thanks to John for reporting his experience, it confirms my suspicions (that things can only get better, unless we run into some legacy application that has built a dependency on the crummy translation done by STANDARD).
Cheers, bc On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Glenn Knickerbocker <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:33:31 -0700, gil wrote: > >Think Unicode. What'll you do if someone sends you a document > >in UTF-8? 256 characters is _so_ Twentieth Century. > > If I'm on VM or MVS, I probably won't have DBCS support available to view > it anyway. But Bob's gateway may be passing the message on from VM to > another system. As long as his translation is reversible, the 8-bit > encoded data will get there fine, and it doesn't matter what it looked > like in the middle. Meanwhile, though, he also wants the best > translation for messages whose final destination is on VM or MVS. > > ¬R "Carl Sagan is more educational than J.R.R. Tolkien even though they > were both total stoners." K. > http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cosmic.html<http://users.bestweb.net/%7Enotr/cosmic.html> >
