On 8/26/25 10:14, Seymour J Metz wrote:
26? 52? That's very Anglocentric. Why not any alphabetic Unicode character?
EBCDIC was great in its day, but these days 256 code points is not nearly
enough.
...
Yes, but they can be overloaded (037, 500, 1047, ...)
Linux allows ISO-8859 in pathnames. MacOS enforces
UTF-8. You may argue (I expect you will) with that
design decision. But at least it's enforced uniformly
at the filesystem level, not chaotically, as by MVS
in middleware.
More than 256? Unicode? In JCL, TSO TMP, Data
Management,..., That's a great Idea! Have you
submitted it?
--
gil
