The author's point was exactly that Unicode is NOT a DBCS. And he was not arguing against Unicode but against 16-bit Unicode as opposed to UTF-8.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT? A cause to join, but somewhat humorous It is always possible to find fault with any code. They are all engineering compromises among conflicting objectives. What I have sensed in a number of posts in this thread is a mixture of anglophone bigotry and anglophone provinciality, both of them disagreeable. Most of the time and in most of the situations we here on IBM-MAIN deal with Unicode is a DBCS. Moreover, I suspect that familiarity has desensititized us to the deficiencies of both ASCII and EBCDIC. In both, for example, '-' sorts higher than '+'; and they share many other deficiencies in one context or another. It is clear beyond argument that 256 code points are not enough, and there are---mostly non-anglophone---contexts in which 65536 code points are not enough either. MBCSs are thus all but certainly in the womb of time, but they will anyway be an improvement on code-page juggling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
