Tony Harminc wrote: >There *was* something called UTF-EBCDIC, but IBM and UNICODE seem to have >abandoned it shortly after it was written.
> <https://unicode.org/reports/tr16/tr16-7.2.html> > https://unicode.org/reports/tr16/tr16-7.2.html >I've never understood why there was so little interest shown in it; it >seemed to me to fill the bill very nicely. At the risk of sounding.something, what bill is that? If you're going to muck with encoding, go to UTF-8 and be done with it. I'm not being flip-I have to deal with ASCII/EBCDIC/UTF-n in a format-preserving data protection environment, which is even more complex (normalization, for one thing), so I'm by no means minimizing the pain. But it feels kinda like https://xkcd.com/927/ . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
