> > ASCII SQL_ASCII
> > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8
> > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL
> > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1
> > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2
> > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3
> > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4
> > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5
> > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6
> > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7
> > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8
> > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9
> > ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6
> > ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7
> > ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8
> > ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9
> > ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16
>
> Why aren't you using LATINx for (some of) these as well?
If LATIN6 to 9 are well defined in the SQL or some other standards, I
would not object using them. I just don't have enough confidence.
For ISO-8859-5 to 8, and 16, I don't see well defined standards.
--
Tatsuo Ishii