Re: pg_client_encoding

* Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> [011014 16:05]:
> > > 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.

ISO-8859-16 *is* LATIN10, I just don't have the reference to prove it
(I can look for it, if you want to).

ISO-8859-5 to 8 aren't latin scripts. From memory, 5 is cyrillic, 6 is
arabic, 7 is greek, 8 is ??? (hebrew ?)...

So it would make sense to add LATIN10, still :)

Patrice

--
Patrice Hédé
email: patrice hede à islande org
www : http://www.islande.org/