From: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp |
---|---|
To: | kinsa01(at)cai(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Postgres-6.3.2 locale patch (fwd) |
Date: | 1998-06-12 07:19:05 |
Message-ID: | 199806120719.QAA04878@srapc451.sra.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> The biggest problem for Unicode is that the translation is not
>> symmetrical. An encoding to Unicode is ok. However, Unicode to an
>> encoding is like one-to-many. The reason for that is "Unification." A
>> code point of Unicode might correspond to either Chinese, Japanese or
>> Korean. To determine that, we need additional infomation what language
>> we are using. Too bad. Any idea?
>
>It seems not that bad for the translation from Unicode to Japanese EUC
>(or SJIS or Big5).
>Because Japanese EUC(or SJIS) has only Japanese characters and Big5 has only Chinese characters(regarding to only CJK).
>Right?
>It would be virtually one-to-one or one-to-none when translating
>from unicode to them mono-lingual encodings.
Oh, I was wrong. We have already an information about "what language
we are using" when try to make a translation between Unicode and
Japanese EUC:-)
>It, however, would not be that simple to translate from Unicdoe to
>another multi-lingual encoding(like iso-2022 based Mule encoding?).
Correct.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Zeugswetter | 1998-06-12 07:30:49 | AW: [HACKERS] now 6.4 |
Previous Message | Satoshi Kinoshita | 1998-06-12 06:47:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Postgres-6.3.2 locale patch (fwd) |