Rewrite of IBM doublebyte charsets
Xueming.Shen at Sun.COM
Thu May 21 22:33:44 UTC 2009
Xueming Shen wrote:
> 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
I meant to say
"none of the official ebcdic<->unicode mapping tables from IBM/MSFT has
this hack documented/recorded"
> this fix, which was made 10 years ago, sometime.
More information about the core-libs-dev