Mike Schwab wrote: >Would UTF-16 to UTF-8 be a better conversion? You still have to be
>certain of the source character set. And is supported by some z/OS >software. As Cameron indicated, your comment doesn't quite make sense. UTF-16 is just a variable-length encoding, in which basic ASCII* (0-127) are single-byte, some characters are two-byte, some three-, and some four-. More efficient, especially in the "mostly basic ASCII" case. *Yes, I know, talking about "ASCII" in the context of Unicode is dangerous and arguably incorrect. You know what I mean. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
