Re: UTF-8

2001-11-09 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
At 11:01 09/11/01 +, you wrote: >Others are saying UTF-8 is possible (pseudo UTF-8 anyway, it's actually a >subset of UTF-16) but is *seriously* difficult. I've not found any real >answers though :-( Microsoft declares UTF-8/16 compatible as for VB 6 SP3+, including controls. I don't see any

Re: UTF-8

2001-11-09 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 November 2001 10:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: dave Page > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] UTF-8 > > > At 11:21 09/11/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Arial Unicode MS - 51,180 glyphs in version 0.86 > > We

Re: UTF-8

2001-11-09 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
At 11:21 09/11/01 +0100, you wrote: >Arial Unicode MS ­ 51,180 glyphs in version 0.86 Well, after testing, using Arial Unicode MS does not suffice. I am sure PostgreSQL backend is well configured as I display Japanese fonts with PHP. Maybe we need to configure odbc to declare it as an UTF-8 enc

Re: UTF-8

2001-11-09 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
>Yes, isn't this also the case with Unicode data? When you mentioned that >before I asked how to fix it and nobody could tell me... There was mention >of using a Unicode font, but that was many megabytes in size as I recall. > >Suggestions? Yes, you are right. I am doing a test with Arial Unicod