| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, - - <crossroads0000(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unicode support |
| Date: | 2009-04-13 20:39:44 |
| Message-ID: | 21918.1239655184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Is it really true trhat canonical encodings never contain any composed
> characters in them? I thought there were some glyphs which could only
> be represented by composed characters.
AFAIK that's not true. However, in my original comment I was thinking
about UTF16 surrogates, which are something else entirely --- so I
withdraw that. I'm still dubious that it is our job to deal with
non-normalized characters, though.
> The original post seemed to be a contrived attempt to say "you should
> use ICU".
Indeed. The OP should go read all the previous arguments about ICU
in our archives.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-04-13 21:04:17 | Re: Unicode support |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-04-13 20:26:20 | Re: Unicode support |