Thanks. That wasn't obvious to me because I did not get from that Bemer page that IBM had erred in not making the 360 ASCII only--just that had the software actually supported ASCII, things would have been different. Better? Maybe; it's certainly been that case that a ton of resources have been spent on ASCII-EBCDIC issues over the years.
Almost as many as have been spent on linends, or null terminated strings (two other items on my time-machine list!) -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 12:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EBCDIC/ASCII - FTP "This" is the link that Gil provided in the email that I replied to, at the bottom of the post. The assertion was that IBM erred in not making the System/360 ASCII only. The availability of multiple EBCDIC code pages seems to me to make Beemer's assertion that there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between ASCII and EBCDIC even more dubious. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
