In
<CAArMM9T5iAWomwY=mpt5lazdbz7xaz0h6b0nhyjws0ymc0o...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 01/13/2014
at 02:27 PM, Tony Harminc <t...@harminc.net> said:
>But no one would say that UTF-8 *is*
>ASCII, or that UTF-EBCDIC *is* EBCDIC.
Well, all ASCII characters are valid single octet UTF-8 sequences, so
I would say that ASCII is a subset of UTF-8.mAs for EBCDIC, there were
already multiple EBCDIC code pages prior to Unicode, so there would
seem to be a case for calling UTF-EBCDIC as much EBCDIC as the others.
Does the IBM documentation take a position on that?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
