Jason Felice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, my opinion is this: If we're going to change it, let's go
> to an internal Unicode representation and not just find better ways
> to implement the current hack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from
> what you have there I think that mapping to the 32-bit Unicode type
> wouldn't be difficult, and from there mapping to iso-8859-x wouldn't
> be difficult.
Not quite, since what I've got at the moment defines the conversion
straight from EBCDIC to whatever 8-bit character set the file's
encoded in, so that it doesn't matter what that is. This makes it
quite easy to use XEmacs or yudit to check the table against IBM's
tables at:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com:80/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/QB3AQ500/F.0
(And now I see I missed the very useful tables at the top of that
page. Oh well.)
Wouldn't a 16-bit UCS-2 Unicode representation be enough? AFAIK, it's
all that IBM support in OS/400 itself, and all that Python, Windows,
and some Unixes support.
--
Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/
They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.
+---
| This is the LINUX5250 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To subscribe to this list send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+---
