Rewrite of IBM doublebyte charsets
Xueming.Shen at Sun.COM
Thu May 21 22:30:36 UTC 2009
Ulf Zibis wrote:
> In IBM933.map you state:
> # Warning:
> # (2) we "should" have an entry
> # 25 000a
> # in IBM933.nr (b->c only tables) as other ebcdic
> # mappings do, but the "old" implementation actually
> # maps \u000a to 25. Keep it old behavior for now.
> I think we shouldn't stick on old behaviour here, as there obviously
> was an error in old code, but nobody filed a bug until now.
It's a tough call, and I always try to avoid the touch call:-)
I believe this brain-damage 0x15, 0x25 -> 000a -> 0x15, 0085->0x15
mapping is the result of the
"fix" we made for #4159519, as the workaround solution for the "what is
the real new line on ebcdic
system" problem, while none of the official ebcdic<->unicode mapping
tables from IBM/MSFT do
NOT have this hack documented/recorded at all. So we might want to
re-check the soundness of
this fix, which was made 10 years ago, sometime.
More information about the core-libs-dev