ASCII is a subset of Unicode, and the UTF-8 transform of an ASCII code point is that code point, so I'd say total upward compatibility. Of course, ASCII had compatibility issues with itself in the early days, with some bizarre dualing of code points.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 11:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: UTF16 to EBCDIC On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 04:06:35 +0000, Edward Finnell < wrote: >Guess I don't see the reasoning. IBM has had DBCS for decades. > >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27004197&aid=1In ITYM: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27004197&aid=1 UTF-8 has enormous compatibility with ASCII. IBM DBCS has such compatibility neither with EBCDIC nor with ASCII. On Linux or MacOS I can code C source programs or shell scripts alike in ASCII or UTF-8. Can COBOL or HLASM source, or JCL be DBCS? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
