- From: jean-frederic clere <jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:24:38 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: Hans Franke <Hans.Franke@mch20.sbs.de>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > At 13:25 03/10/24 +0200, Hans Franke wrote: > >> > The three charsets just submitted seem to be different >> > (otherwise there wouldn't be three separate submissions), >> > but the introductory text gives no indication of what >> > the specifics of each of these registrations are, or >> > how they differ. I suggest that the registration proposals >> > be updated to give more details to allow readers to >> > understand what the specifics of each encoding are >> > without having to check all the details in the encoding >> > tables. >> >> These Codes are EBCDIC equivalents of 8859 Variants >> >> OSD_EBCDIC_DF04_1 (or EDF041) -> ISO 8859-1 >> OSD_EBCDIC_DF04_15 (EDF04F) -> ISO 8859-15 >> (The full Name used in OSD tabes is rather EBCDIC.DF.04-F) > > > That's what I guessed. The registrations should be > updated to say so, this helps a lot. I will update the registrations to add this explanation. > >> OSD_EBCDIC_DF03_IRV (EDF03IRV) -> ISO 646 >> (Which is 'Standard' EBCDIC') > > > If that's true, then I don't see any reason to register > this. There is already a registration for EBCDIC, and > we don't want to register things twice. No that is not the IBM EBCDIC: For example 0x15 is LINE FEED in OSD_EBCDIC_DF03_IRV. > > Regards, Martin. > >
Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 04:26:39 UTC