| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk, oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com, zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UTF8 or Unicode |
| Date: | 2005-02-25 15:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 5290.1109345593@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> 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's complaint, it's not going to confuse
anyone in practice --- the 7-bit version of that standard has no traction.
The reason UNICODE is a bad name for UTF8 is exactly that there are
multiple physical encodings of Unicode that are in common use.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 15:36:36 | Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-25 15:28:27 | Re: int64/double for time/timestamp |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 15:58:33 | Re: bcc32.mak for libpq broken? (distro 8.0.0) (fwd) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 15:26:05 | Re: UTF8 or Unicode |