• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:44:05 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <200112152156.VAA31918@p...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>But any file that's in ebcdic encoding will anyway have to have
>an encoding declaration and the parser, if it understands ebcdic at all,
>will have to map everything to unicode, so there's nothing stopping
>ebcdic new-line being used with XML 1.0 as white space in ebcdic encoded
>XML files so long as the parsers map NEL to #10.

Certainly ebcdic-aware implementations can map NEL to #10, but...

>It is unnatural to
>allow #85 as white space in XML as (currently at least) it isn't as far
>as I know an end of line character in any ascii/unicode based system.

... this would mean that you could parse ebcdic files, but not ebcdic
files that had been translated to Unicode in the standard way.

>At least NEL was flagged as being considered in the original
>requirements doc and is a single byte in utf8.

Um, no it isn't.  Only 0x7F are single bytes.  It's a single byte
in Latin-N.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-1.1 -- just ignore it
• Next by Date: RE: Displaying Dynamic Text
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Next by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread