On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 January 2014 10:21, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > on 01/09/2014 at 09:00 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> said: > > > >>There is no general way to convert UNICODE into EBCDIC, > > > > There are EBCDIC transforms for Unicode. I'm not sure whether that > qulifies as EBCDIC. > > Exactly as much as UTF-8 qualifies as ASCII, that is to say, not at > all. In both cases (UTF-8 and UTF-EBCDIC), there are several > characteristics of the encoded result that are convenient in the > respective environments. In particular, for legacy applications, the > most often used characters in single-byte ASCII/EBCDIC are encoded by > the same byte value in UTF-xxx. But no one would say that UTF-8 *is* > ASCII, or that UTF-EBCDIC *is* EBCDIC. > > As a former US president famously said, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" :-) It would be perfectly reasonable to say that UTF-8 is a superset of ASCII. That was its design - the lower 128 code points are ASCII (7-bits). Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
