Dennis Bjorklund kirjutas T, 25.11.2003 kell 14:51:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > I'm tired of telling that Unicode is not that perfect.
Of course not, but neither is the current multibyte with only marginal
support for unicode (many people actually need upper()/lower() )
> Another gottcha
> > with Unicode is the UTF-8 encoding (currently we use) consumes 3
> > bytes for each Kanji character, while other encodings consume only 2
> > bytes.
I think that for *storage* we should use SCSU (the Standard Compression
Scheme for Unicode).
> IMO 3/2 storage ratio could not be neglected for database use.
SCSU should solve that (actually it should use less than 2 bytes char
for encoding any single language)
> The rest of the world seems to select unicode as the way to handle
> different languages in the UI of programs. For example gnome supports
> nothing but unicode. How is that handled in your country? I know that you
> are tired of people who don't understand how difficult it is for you, but
> I really would like to know. Is gnome not used over there because of this?
>
> About storing data in the database, I would expect it to work with any
> encoding, just like I would expect pg to be able to store images in any
> format.
>
> I'll try to not mention unicode near you in the feature :-)
---------------
Hannu