Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@m...] >Absolutely right. The ASCII/Unicode analogue of 0x15 is 0x0a (LINE >FEED), and the ASCII/Unicode analogue of 0x25 is 0x85 (NEW LINE). So >when there is an 0x25 in EBCDIC data, it is correctly converted to >0x85. So, why did they choose not to use 0x0D (CR) for 0x25/0x85, since that's the semantically-closest character? Do they also have a CR-equivalent character that isn't being mentioned here, and is useful information lost by converting 0x25 to 0x0D? If not, then their EBCDIC-to-Unicode conversion is, as I said, broken - not producing useful results, as their problems with XML show. No matter how big they are, one company's platform-specific problems should not be used to drive the rest of the industry. I should think that would be self-evident. Now, if IBM wants to submit NEL and other Unicode 3.0 whitespace support as a change for XML 1.1 or further, more power to 'em. But changing XML 1.0 for their vanity is not a Thing Which Should Happen. -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
|
