Re: Hexadecimal never again

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 04:02:15 EDT

  • Next message: "RE: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters"

    Les messages non sollicités (spams) ne sont pas tolérés.
    Tout abus sera signalé automatiquement à vos fournisseurs de service.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Allan" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:54 AM
    Subject: Re: Hexadecimal never again

    > Ben Dougall wrote about what is used for hex characters:
    > > which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
    > > sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
    > > 0x46 and 0x61 - 0x66.
    > Not in EBCDIC (and other older character sets) they aren't. There are
    > lot of mainframe systems still using EBCDIC encodings.

    And probably some remaining devices using 5-bit or 6-bit encodings...
    Unicode does not specify encodings out of the UTF-* series.

    I do think that there may also exist some EBCDIC-based transform for
    Unicode similar to UTF-8, except that the UTF-8 bytes are remapped to
    their basic EBCDIC codes (those that do not depend on locale variants,
    and correspond to ASCII bytes and a few EBCDIC "C1" codes), using the
    holes to remap the missing byte values needed to represent the full
    range of UTF-8 encoding byte values 0x00 to 0xFB.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 05:13:51 EDT