On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 at 12:45, Paul Gilmartin < 00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote:
> 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? > Seems like a perfect use case for the much derided UTF-EBCDIC. Tony H.
