Tony Harminc wrote:
> Erik, you seem to have what I can only call an absurd view of how
> mainframes work.
Thanks for the correction!
> The only reason for all this trouble over misuse of the C1 controls
> is because the architecture of a particular IBM display terminal, the
> 3270, required that the range 00-3F and FF were control characters.
So, instead of a gateway (like the old BITNET gateways?) I guess you
would need an app that does the appropriate conversions for the 3270
terminal. Essentially, the problem is still the same. If one environment
cannot handle the data that is common in another environment, then you
need to do something to the data as it "crosses the boundary" between
those environments. So my main point still stands.
> > On Unix, these C1 octets can be mapped to appropriate glyph codes, if
> > the user has installed some of the more modern X fonts, such as
> > *-iso10646-1. The Unix apps are still somewhat behind perhaps, but
> > they will eventually catch up or die. We are planning to make some
> > changes to Unix Mozilla 5.0 to deal with these windows-1252 characters
> > (and UTF-8 too of course).
> Here again I sense a misunderstanding. UNIX does not imply ASCII.
> The standard codepage for UNIX on OS/390 is 1047.
I was referring to the Unixes used on desktop systems, such as Linux,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT