Is there a misconception here? There is what SLAC calls the 37-2 codepage, which IBM refuses to recognise apart from the XLATE stage. It is the one you want with a 3270 terminal. 1047 is not.
j. On 26 February 2010 23:07, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/26/10 12:08, Bob Cronin wrote: > >> PMFJI, but your rant caught my attention. Can you point me to further info >> on precisely how they differ (as I am in the business of mediating >> mainframe-style email exchange between IBM's mainframes and the >> intra/Internets and I ought to be up to speed on this issue. We tend to >> use >> the translation tables shipped with the VM TCP/IP product (which >> themselves >> are derived from tables supplied by IBM's Globalization Center of >> Competency) rather than the native ones built into PIPE (mostly because we >> need to do translations between a lot more codepages/charsets than PIPE >> supports). I am wondering if those tables agree with zOS or PIPE. >> >> The offending codepoints: > > z/OS OEMVS311 and "iconv -f ISO8859-1 -t IBM-1047" > > ASCII EBCDIC > 0x0A 0x15 > 0x85 0x25 > > CMS "pipe xlate from 819 to 1047" > > 0x0A 0x25 > 0x85 0x15 > > (Somewhat from memory. IIRC.) > > The most frequent victims are, e.g. programmers from Linux > platforms who painstakingly hand-code translate tables from > the code page specifications, then find they don't work for > z/OS data because they overlooked a footnote that explains > the deviation. > > > <RANT> >>> CMS Pipelines implemented ISO8859-1 <--> IBM-1047 conversion >>> "by the book". z/OS added a tweak to accommodate the historic >>> behavior of C compilers, 3215 printers, and CP command separators, >>> so CMS and z/OS differ. Dammit, if they differ in even one >>> [pair of] codepoints, z/OS should have defined a different >>> code page, not added a footnote to the doc. >>> </RANT> >>> >> > -- gil >
