Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 25. Februar 2005 16:26 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > OK, but what about latin1?
>
> The following character set names are specified in the SQL standard and
> therefore somewhat non-negotiable:
>
> SQL_CHARACTER
> GRAPHIC_IRV
> LATIN1
> ISO8BIT
> UTF16
> UTF8
>
Am Freitag, 25. Februar 2005 16:26 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> OK, but what about latin1?
The following character set names are specified in the SQL standard and
therefore somewhat non-negotiable:
SQL_CHARACTER
GRAPHIC_IRV
LATIN1
ISO8BIT
UTF16
UTF8
UCS2
SQL_TEXT
SQL_IDENTIFIER
So we have to use LA
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think this is what we should do:
>>
>> UNICODE => UTF8
>> ALT => WIN866
>> WIN => WIN1251
>> TCVN => WIN1258
> OK, but what about latin1?
I think LATIN1 is fine as-is. It's a reasonably popular name for the
character set, and despite Tatsuo'
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 25. Februar 2005 05:51 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > so I see what he is saying. We are not consistent in favoring the
> > official names vs. the common names.
> >
> > I will work on a patch that people can review and test.
>
> I think this is what we should do:
Am Freitag, 25. Februar 2005 05:51 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> so I see what he is saying. We are not consistent in favoring the
> official names vs. the common names.
>
> I will work on a patch that people can review and test.
I think this is what we should do:
UNICODE => UTF8
ALT => WIN866
WIN =>
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 23:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I do not object the changing UNICODE->UTF-8, but all these discussions
> > sound a little bit funny to me.
> >
> > If you want to blame UNICODE, you should blame LATIN1 etc. as
> > well. LATIN1(ISO-8859-1) is actuall
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We are not consistent in favoring the
> official names vs. the common names.
The problem is rather that there are too many standards and conventions
to choose from.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I do not object the changing UNICODE->UTF-8, but all these discussions
> sound a little bit funny to me.
>
> If you want to blame UNICODE, you should blame LATIN1 etc. as
> well. LATIN1(ISO-8859-1) is actually a character set name, not an
> encoding name. ISO-8859-1 can be en
yte
stream. But it can be encoded in 7-bit too. So when we refer to
LATIN1(ISO-8859-1), it's not clear if it's encoded in 7/8-bit.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
From: Bruce Momjian
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UTF8 or Unicode
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:08:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think we just need to _favor_ UTF8.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The question is where are we
> > favoring Unicode rather than UTF8?
>
> It's the canonical name of the encoding, both in the code and the docs.
>
> regression=# create database e encoding 'utf-
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I think we just need to _favor_ UTF8.
I agree.
> The question is where are we
> favoring Unicode rather than UTF8?
It's the canonical name of the encoding, both in the code and the docs.
regression=# create database e encoding 'utf-8';
CREATE DATABASE
regression=# \l
Dave Page wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I think we should fix it and remove UNICODE and WIN encoding names
> >> from PG code.
> >
> > The JDBC driver asks for a UNICODE client encoding before it knows the
> > server version it is talking to. How do you avoid breaking this?
>
> So does pg
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Oliver Jowett
Sent: Fri 2/18/2005 11:27 AM
To: Karel Zak
Cc: List pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UTF8 or Unicode
Karel Zak wrote:
>> Yes, I think we should fix it and remove UNICODE and WIN encoding names
>>
Karel Zak wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 00:27 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
Karel Zak wrote:
Yes, I think we should fix it and remove UNICODE and WIN encoding names
from PG code.
The JDBC driver asks for a UNICODE client encoding before it knows the
server version it is talking to. How do you avoid
Add to 8.1 release notes: encoding names 'UNICODE' and 'WIN' are
deprecated and it will removed in next release. Please, use correct
names "UTF-8" and "WIN1215".
8.2: remove it.
OK?
Why on earth remove it? Just leave it in as an alias to UTF8
Chris
---(end of broadcast)
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 00:27 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
>
> > Yes, I think we should fix it and remove UNICODE and WIN encoding names
> > from PG code.
>
> The JDBC driver asks for a UNICODE client encoding before it knows the
> server version it is talking to. How do you avoi
Karel Zak wrote:
Yes, I think we should fix it and remove UNICODE and WIN encoding names
from PG code.
The JDBC driver asks for a UNICODE client encoding before it knows the
server version it is talking to. How do you avoid breaking this?
-O
---(end of broadcast)--
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:33 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2005 10:22 schrieb Karel Zak:
> > in PG: unicode = utf8 = utf-8
> >
> > Our internal routines in src/backend/utils/mb/encnames.c accept all
> > synonyms. The "official" internal PG name for UTF-8 is "UNICODE" :-(
On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
I know UTF8 is a type of unicode but do we need to rename anything
from Unicode to UTF8?
I don't know. I'll go through the documentation to see if I can find
anything that needs changing.
It's not the documentation that is wrong. Specifying the
Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2005 10:22 schrieb Karel Zak:
> in PG: unicode = utf8 = utf-8
>
> Our internal routines in src/backend/utils/mb/encnames.c accept all
> synonyms. The "official" internal PG name for UTF-8 is "UNICODE" :-(
I think in the SQL standard the official name is UTF8. If someone w
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 22:05 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > At 2005-02-14 21:14:54 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
> > >
> > > Should our multi-byte encoding be referred to as UTF8 or Unicode?
> >
> > The *encoding* should certainly be referred to as UTF-8. Unicode
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2005-02-14 21:14:54 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
> >
> > Should our multi-byte encoding be referred to as UTF8 or Unicode?
>
> The *encoding* should certainly be referred to as UTF-8. Unicode is a
> character set, not an encoding; Unicode characters may be enc
At 2005-02-14 21:14:54 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
>
> Should our multi-byte encoding be referred to as UTF8 or Unicode?
The *encoding* should certainly be referred to as UTF-8. Unicode is a
character set, not an encoding; Unicode characters may be encoded with
UTF-8, among other things.
Should our multi-byte encoding be referred to as UTF8 or Unicode?
I know UTF8 is a type of unicode but do we need to rename anything from
Unicode to UTF8?
Someone asked me via private email.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
24 matches
Mail list logo
