Pretty much any EBCDIC code page is superior to ASCII. As to what to call 8-bit code pages, I'd suggest using the term" 8-bit code page" and reserving the term "ASCII" for ASCII. Especially if you find yourself having to transfer data among machines using different code pages.
I insist on precision because of having been burnt too many times by people who didn't. I notice that there has been a lot of traffic here relating to code pages, and adding to the confusion doesn't help. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:34 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu Subject: Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM) On 2018-02-09, at 13:32:29, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I would argue that EBCDIC is intrinsically superior to ASCII. I would also > argue that it is not intrinsically superior to, e.g., ISO-8859-15. > Let's not compare an apple to an orange grove. I know you insist on precision; that ASCII is a 7-bit character set and ISO-8859-15 is a particular 8-bit superset of ASCII. But what's EBCDIC? It's at least a family of character sets. The one that corresponds closely to ISO-8859-15 is probably IBM1148. But "ASCII" is widely used casually for ASCII-based character sets. See: https://secure-web.cisco.com/18H7Eyco4-EbVopgucoUzCqNl8ASENBZwoFfmRl1luDdjcLo5PanBJQgArOGHUAh5wYVAH6GmXTY0-Ke6zMSstKU9DPMz90ubj6RxTkx3iNdYmUNgN0ozbPMSzLC5F8ikS27WMxMvm_kG3IZc6e_5AVMJ2DJLa7_ylMXngr_uZ8J1bLcDnmePoXqY30RY-7sZHMVZxBoQAVbULFtYEoSZv_OXyM20JfxKGeCqNw8ixfQU1FPPtwA-dxQL8x1njNN5Gd5GW3jUEFqORwXBpqOg7Yb7w6I9RFX4-pxuPhx5nnZUg9eAMLdSkwtXWYpgxjUlqyiqzXByJmOHd4V7CtINnSaqhrwBonnAidx-VWDHeFGt1kmkhLerBvbWIM7yDzpO7_LEQte6UETMcOw2DDSjXxNvjKJ6ggNINx78RE1Ul4YM-iMTDh-4bwkwKcUak1bV/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fsupport%2Fknowledgecenter%2Fen%2FSSB23S_1.1.0.14%2Fgtpa2%2Fchar51.html Can you suggest a more convenient term encompassing the CCSIDs called "ASCII" on that page, less cumbersome than "ASCII-based character set" or "ASCII compatible" used once in that document? -- gil
