From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 04:02:15 EDT
Les messages non sollicités (spams) ne sont pas tolérés.
Tout abus sera signalé automatiquement à vos fournisseurs de service.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Allan" <email@example.com>
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