Lisa Moore wrote:
> Jianping wrote:
>
> only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
> UTF-16 support for RDBMS
>
> Whoa...let me interject, DB2 for OS/390 supports UTF-8 and UTF-16. And DB2
> for Intel, Unix, supported both much earlier. I cannot speak to Jiangping's
> intrepretation of "fully"
>
Th
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
Jianping Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So far, I can claim that only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
>> UTF-16 support for RDBMS, but unfortunately, as we cannot change the
exiting
>> utf8 definition from
At Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:43:42 -0700,
Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-16 not UTF-8.
I don't think your new UTF-16 propesal solves any problem. It's yet
another encoding. It wo
In a message dated 2001-06-11 21:46:38 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discussed on Unicore?
Please, don't excommunicate us non-members from the discussion by restricting
it to the members-only unicoRe list. We have something to contribute to
At Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:40:41 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, it will cause confusion, however stability, and 100% backwards
> compatibility is an overriding concern. I'd choose a little confusion
It's a BIG confusion.
> Oracle's had to do the same thing with their
> UTF8 character set to
Lisa asked...
> Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discussed on Unicore?
Well, theoretically perhaps, but personally speaking I believe that this
UTF-8 business is so choice and has such far-reaching implications for
every user and so many other standards that, like presidential private
lives,
Jianping wrote:
only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
UTF-16 support for RDBMS
Whoa...let me interject, DB2 for OS/390 supports UTF-8 and UTF-16. And DB2
for Intel, Unix, supported both much earlier. I cannot speak to Jiangping's
intrepretation of "fully"
Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discuss
Jianping Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So far, I can claim that only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
>> UTF-16 support for RDBMS, but unfortunately, as we cannot change the
exiting
>> utf8 definition from Oracle 8i as backward compatibility, we have to use
a new
>> character set name for it a
would end up with a stable solution. With UTF-8s we will be
fighting the problem forever.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:14 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
From: "Carl W.
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > If UTF-8S were to by some miracle be accepted by
> > > the UTC, implementers will be put out and offended
> > > for most of the next decade.
> > >
> >
> > If it is, that is rule of law from UTC.
>
> Very true.
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oracle is promoting and following the standard. Same as most other
database
> vendors, our database does not fully support supplementary character in
Oracle
> 8i and Oracle 7. But as we see the need to support it, we extend this
support
> in Oracle 9i.
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If UTF-8S were to by some miracle be accepted by
> > the UTC, implementers will be put out and offended
> > for most of the next decade.
> >
>
> If it is, that is rule of law from UTC.
Very true.
And if they vote against it, will you do the right
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
> > how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
>
> So many linguists afoot, and we will get bogged down in my attempts to
> provide a
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
> how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
So many linguists afoot, and we will get bogged down in my attempts to
provide a little spice to the subject?
The difference, of
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am proposing that we fix UTF-16.
Are you formally proposing this? For the next UTC meeting?
michka
(whoops, sent too soon!)
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am proposing that we fix UTF-16.
Are you formally proposing this? For the next UTC meeting? Without an actual
customer that is wanting it for an implementation I am pretty sure this will
be voted down pretty loudly.
michka
Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
> >
> > Parse error at "lavicious
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
>
> Parse error at "lavicious". No such word appears in any English
> dictionary I own, not even the OED.
Sorry, that was to be lascivious.
Glad someone is still parsing in this thread.
m
Michael Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
Parse error at "lavicious". No such word appears in any English
dictionary I own, not even the OED.
Rick
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:47 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-1
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-16 not UTF-8. I don't think that I
> am the only one who thinks that UTF-8s will create more problems that it
> fixes.
>
> Worse yet they w
of this proposal is that UCS-2 (plane 0 only) codes will sort in
the same order as the post transformed UTF-16 codes.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:22 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 prob
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think that UTF-16x would be a better approach than UTF-8s. I am sure
that
> I have missed some issues feel free to comment. In any case UTF-16s would
> naturally be in Unicode code point order. It would be easy to transform
to
> UCS-2 for applicati
I think we all recognize that UTF-16 has problems in that it does not
naturally sort in Unicode code point order. It would have been nice if the
end of the sort order had been available for surrogate codes.
However, if we try to look at the problem from different perspectives we
might come up wi
24 matches
Mail list logo
