[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML and mainframes, yet again

• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:30:00 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <E16Fnmt-00087M-00@m...>

> > It's good to remember that one reason they're a problem is that they
> > have become a storehouse for vendor-proprietary characters, with
> > as many different meanings as most C0 ones (U+0000..U+001F).
> > Blessing one vendor's solution may magnify the problems.
> 
> Again, not really.  The *bytes* 80 through 9F encode many different
> characters, including #x80 through #x9F.  There is really only one
> set of uses in practice for the characters #x80 through #x9F.

Not if you go by what most systems do with those codes; what I've
seen in practice is that those codes will map to U+0080..U+009F.

Do you have some specification in mind for that "one set of uses"?
Some ISO-8859-1 spec addendum would be interesting, since
that's where those were defined (prior to importing to Unicode).
The rule of thumb being that one adds a high order zero byte to
the ISO-8859-1 code points ("bytes") and gets Unicode.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Next by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread