On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > It seems correcting the table is the correct way to go, by direct > observation, and placing great faith that other than 0x15/0x37, > the discrepancies between ASCII <> EBCDIC C0 mappings do > not vary widely between EBCDIC mapping choices.
Maybe to be sure we could compare the current 'ucharmap' with some result of apr_xlate_conv_byte() for each byte?
