Now I received the authorization to give you an answer to the WHY question! Because basicly, this project is classified TOP SECTRET.
Well, we know then we have no real avantage to use UTF-32 in comparaison to UTF-8. But we need to establish a gateway between two huge networks. One network is Internet, the other is ... named it extra-Internet. Extra-Internet is older then the Internet that you already know. It don't use IP protocol, but use a 32 bit per character encoding. This 32 bit encoding is not UTF-32, but supports 40 languages. Languages which are not include in UTF-32. The language which have the less characters, use 100 characters. The bigger alphabet have 10000 characters. The most used language has 500 characters. This extra-internet is as big as the actual Internet that you know. This extra-Internet has not been built by USA, but by an other country. Well, I try to convince peoples to use UTF-32. I will need to ask to UNICODE to integrate the foreign 32 bits encoding in the future release of UTF-32. And ask to the extra-internet authority, to integrate the UTF-32 in there standard 32 bits encoding. I request to IETF to support UTF-32 int IPv6. I asked to w3.org to support UTF-32 in the future HTML format. I plan to propose to the extra-Internet autority to upgrade to IPv6. They actualy have problems with the availability of address, like we have with IPv4. The protocol they use is very basic, more basic than IPv4. And fail very often. Well, hope it give answer to our question. Le 26/10/15, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> a écrit : > On 27 October 2015 at 05:39, <fortin.christ...@videotron.ca> wrote: > > > I mean for ALL, data stored, source code, and translation files. > > For source code, I think then GCC must support UTF-32 before. > > Why? > > UTF-32 is an incredibly inefficient way to store text that's > predominantly or entirely within the 7-bit ASCII space. UTF-8 is a > much better way to handle it. > > Anyway, while gcc supports sources encoded in utf-8 just fine, it's > more typical to represent chars using byte escapes so that people with > misconfigured text editors don't mangle them. It does not support > utf-8 identifiers (variable names, function names, etc) containing > characters outside the 7-bit ASCII space, but you can work around it > with UCN if you need to; see the FAQ: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_status_of_adding_the_UTF-8_support_for_identifier_names_in_GCC.3F > > I don't think the PostgreSQL project is likely to accept patches using > characters outside the 7-bit ascii space in the near future, as > compiler and text editor support is unfortunately still too primitive. > We support a variety of legacy platforms and toolchains, many of which > won't cope at all. There isn't a pressing reason, since at the user > level the support for a wide variety of charsets (including all > characters in the UTF-32 space) is already present. > > I am aware this is a form of English-language privilege. Of course > it's easy for me as an English first-language speaker to say "oh, we > don't need support for your language in the code". It's also practical > though - code in a variety of languages, so that no one person can > read or understand all of it, is not maintainable in the long term. > Especially when people join and leave the project. It's the same > reason the project is picky about introducing new programming > languages, even though it might be nice to be able to write parts of > the system in Python, parts in Haskell, etc. > > So I don't think we need UTF-32 source code support, or even full > UTF-8 source code support, because even if we had it we probably > wouldn't use it. > > > > I sent an e-mail to Oracle to see what they tink about this huge idea. > > I don't understand how this is a huge idea. The representation of the > characters doesn't matter, so long as the DB can represent the full > character suite. Right? > > > Well, I know it's not efficient space wise, but this in the only way that we > > can deployed worldwide. > > UTF-8 is widely used worldwide and covers the full Unicode 32-bit code space. > > I wonder if you are misunderstanding UTF-8 vs UCS-2 vs UTF-16 vs UTF-32. > > UTF-8 is an encoding that can represent the full 32-bit Unicode space > using escape sequences. It is endianness-independent. One character is > a variable number of bytes, so lookups to find the n'th character, > substring operations, etc are a bit ugly. UTF-8 is the character set > used by most UNIX APIs. > > UCS-2 is a legacy encoding that can represent the lower 16 bits of the > Unicode space. It cannot represent the full 32-bit Unicode space. It > has two different forms, little-endian and big-endian, so you have to > include a marker to say which is which, or be careful about handling > it in your code. It's easy to do n'th character lookups, substrings, > etc. > > UTF-16 is like UCS-2, but adds UTF-8-like escape sequences to handle > the high 16 bits of the 32-bit Unicode space. It combines the worst > features of UTF-8 and UCS-2. UTF-16 is the character set used by > Windows APIs and the ICU library. > > UTF-32 (UCS-4) is much like UCS-2, but uses 4 bytes per character to > represent the full Unicode character set. The downside is that it uses > a full 4 bytes for every character, even when only one byte would be > needed if you were using utf-8. It's easy to do substrings and n'th > character lookups. UCS-4 is horrible on CPU cache and memory. Few APIs > use native UTF-32. > > So we already support one of the best text encodings available. > > We could add support for using UTF-16 and UTF-32 as the > client_encoding on the wire. But really, the client application can > convert between the protocol's UTF-8 and whatever it wants to use > internally; there's no benefit to using UTF-16 or UTF-32 on the wire, > and it'd be a lot slower. Especially without protocol compression. > > So can you explain why you believe UTF-32 support is necessary? > > Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services > >
