| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| Date: | 2004-08-07 11:11:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0408071306160.9559-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> More seriously, Unicode is filled with tons of confusion and
> inconsistency IMO. Remember that once Unicode adovocates said that the
> merit of Unicode was it only requires 16-bit width. Now they say they
> need surrogate pairs and 32-bit width chars...
>
> Anyway my point is if current specification of Unicode only allows
> 24-bit range, why we need to allow usage against the specification?
Whatever problems they have had in the past, the ISO 10646 defines
formally a 31-bit character set. Are you saying that applications should
reject strings that contain characters that it does not recognize?
Is there a specific reason you want to restrict it to 24 bits? In practice
it does not matter much since it's not used today, I just don't know why
you want it.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | strk | 2004-08-07 12:11:07 | pg_dump and sequences (bug ?) |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2004-08-07 11:10:53 | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Hansen | 2004-08-07 13:40:36 | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2004-08-07 11:10:53 | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |