"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
> I warned my clients not to use
> surrogates with Oracle 8.x data bases. I also can not see that they could
> be so short sighted not to develop a full UTF-8 encoder. If MS can put
> surrogate support into Windows 2000, then they can put it into Oracle 8.0.
> I am sure
"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
> Jianping,
>
> > In fact, Oracle 8.0 development started in 1992 and it was
> > released in 1994,
> > which should be much earlier than NT 5.0.
> >
> Back then I was still using Oracle 7. Thank you for correcting me. What
> made you chose UTF-8 back in 1992?
>
Oracle
Jianping,
> In fact, Oracle 8.0 development started in 1992 and it was
> released in 1994,
> which should be much earlier than NT 5.0.
>
Back then I was still using Oracle 7. Thank you for correcting me. What
made you chose UTF-8 back in 1992?
Is part of the problem that you use UCS-2 for CLOB
Peter,
>
> >6) UTF-16X (also named UTF-16S or UTF-16F) is definitely humor,
> although I
> >am probably not the only one to think that it is technically more
> "serious"
> >than UTF-8S.
>
> I didn't get the impression that it was presented with humour in mind. I
> didn't read the original message
On 06/25/2001 02:13:02 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>5) UTF-32S is a borderline case. I am quite sure that it was proposed with
>tongue in cheek...
No, it was proposed in all seriousness in the same document in which Oracle
and friends proposed UTF-8s.
>6) UTF-16X (also named UTF-16S or UTF-16F)
(sneg)
V jbhyq hfr snegf sbe npebalzf.
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!;
$B08@h(B: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Cc:
$BF|;~(B: 01/06/26 0:36
$B7oL>(B: Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17)
>At 10:13 AM 6/25/01, Otto Stolz wrote:
>>Ye
At 10:13 AM 6/25/01, Otto Stolz wrote:
>Yet, I acknowledge the need to clearly mark humorous UTF propositions
>for the unsuspicious. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enclose their
>respective acronyms between \u202B and \u202C. This would be enough
>hinting on the skewed nature of such suggestions wh
> >A proposal needs a definition, though:
> >
> > UTF would mean "Unicode Transformation Format"
> > utf would mean "Unicode Terrible Farce"
>
> untenable total figment?
unable to focus?
utf twisted form?
YA
In a message dated 2001-06-25 2:24:36 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> To avoid possible misunderstandings, such as regarding Doug's Unicode
> Compression Kludge as a duck, acronyms should continue being written
> in upper-case letters.
I hadn't thought of that possibility,
* Marco Cimarosti
|
| 1) UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 are the only three real EXISTING Unicode
| Transformation Formats. They are official and part of the Unicode standard.
* Elliotte Rusty Harold
|
| What about ISO-10646-UCS-2 and ISO-10646-UCS-4 as used in XML? Where
| do they fit in? Are they
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> What about ISO-10646-UCS-2 and ISO-10646-UCS-4 as used in XML? Where
> do they fit in? Are they only part of ISO-10646 and not Unicode? or
> are they identical to UTF-16 and UTF-32? or something else?
I didn't include them just because they don't start with "UTF",
At 11:13 AM +0200 6/25/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Hallo.
>
>I am one of those who started this childish joke of introducing implausible
>"UTF-..." acronyms at nearly every post.
>
>I found that the joke is getting very fun but also that it may be starting
>confusing people, so I fill compelled to
Otto Stolz wrote:
> Yet, I acknowledge the need to clearly mark humorous UTF propositions
> for the unsuspicious. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enclose their
> respective acronyms between \u202B and \u202C. This would be enough
> hinting on the skewed nature of such suggestions while still
> indi
Hallo.
I am one of those who started this childish joke of introducing implausible
"UTF-..." acronyms at nearly every post.
I found that the joke is getting very fun but also that it may be starting
confusing people, so I fill compelled to quit joking for a moment and make
clear which ones are t
Am 2001-06-23 um 14:40 h EDT hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> To keep well-meaning people from misinterpreting humorous UTF proposals as
> serious, while still allowing the levity to flow freely, I hereby propose
> that UTFs proposed in a non-serious light be indicated in lower-case letters
>
At 12:29 PM 6/23/2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> > To keep well-meaning people from misinterpreting humorous UTF proposals as
> > serious, while still allowing the levity to flow freely, I hereby propose
> > that UTFs proposed in a non-serious light be indicat
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm never ashamed of perfectly good code I've written to fulfill a
humorous
> requirement. I'm only ashamed of badly written code, or code that
implements
> a bad idea that someone else thinks is a good idea.
The latter is kind of the worry I had -- a long time ago I
In a message dated 2001-06-22 23:08:11 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Oh yeah, well, I can be more tongue-in-cheek than all of you. I've
> > already implemented it.
>
> Doug, this is one of those things one should be ashamed of, like believing
> in the April Fool's Day
18 matches
Mail list logo
