Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can encode unicode in different ways, and UTF-8 is only one
> of them. Is there a problem with using UCS-2 (except that it
> would require more storage for ASCII)?
UCS-2 is impractical without some *extremely* wide-ranging changes in
the backend. To take just the most obvious point, doesn't it require
allowing embedded zero bytes in text strings?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
