Xueming Shen wrote:
Ulf Zibis wrote:
In IBM933.map you state:
# Warning:
# (2) we "should" have an entry
# 25 000a
# in IBM933.nr (b->c only tables) as other ebcdic
# mappings do, but the "old" implementation actually
# maps \u000a to 25. Keep it old behavior for now.
I think we shouldn't stick on old behaviour here, as there obviously
was an error in old code, but nobody filed a bug until now.
It's a tough call, and I always try to avoid the touch call:-)
I believe this brain-damage 0x15, 0x25 -> 000a -> 0x15, 0085->0x15
mapping is the result of the
"fix" we made for #4159519, as the workaround solution for the "what
is the real new line on ebcdic
system" problem, while none of the official ebcdic<->unicode mapping
tables from IBM/MSFT do
NOT have this hack documented/recorded at all. So we might want to
re-check the soundness of
I meant to say
"none of the official ebcdic<->unicode mapping tables from IBM/MSFT has
this hack documented/recorded"
this fix, which was made 10 years ago, sometime.
Sherman
