> Do we really _need_ such a reminder - isn't anyone on an EBCDIC
> machine already painfully aware that IO is different, and glad
> of anything that can get to make it "do the right thing" without
> having to hack the script/module?
>
> If I write Unicode to a text file on EBCDIC I am most likely to want
> it as UTF-EBCDIC (is that true in general or just me?), so making
> ":utf8" do what is most wanted on both ASCII and EBCDIC seems sensible.
>
> I think though that if I don't convince y'all soon - then PerlIO layer
> is going to become deliberately under-specified ":utf" _EVERYWHERE_.
> That way if Win32 folk (say) decide it should be "utf-16le" we can be
> right there too.
>
> Jarkko - do you want to do that for 5.7.1 - i.e. before :utf8 layer
> sees the light in a "release" ?
I can't say that I have followed the UTFEBCDIC discussion with all
the attention it would deserve -- but putting on my Joe User hat,
I would find it at the very least curious if ":utf8" didn't
mean UTF-8 as it is defined (in an RFC). Then again, I haven't
read the UTF-EBCDIC Unicode TR (or do they call it an UAX these
days) for ages. If I had a quick summary of what now happens
in EBCDIC with :utf8, how is that different from say, UNIX,
I would have to wave my hands less.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
