| From: | "Tomi NA" <hefest(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Brandon Aiken" <BAiken(at)winemantech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | thewild(at)free(dot)fr, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MSSQL to PostgreSQL : Encoding problem |
| Date: | 2006-11-22 22:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | d487eb8e0611221428l474b32b9m925bc798f9d6b876@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2006/11/22, Brandon Aiken <BAiken(at)winemantech(dot)com>:
> Gee, didn't Unicode just so simplify this codepage mess? Remember when it was just ASCII, EBCDIC, ANSI, and localized codepages?
Unicode is a heaven sent, compared to 3 or 4 codepages representing
any given (obviously non-English) language, and 3 or 4 more for every
other language you have to deal with in your application. Perfect?
Hardly. But then again, much more so than natural languages.
I'd say we'd deliver products 10-20% faster (in the company I work in)
if people looked ahead a couple of decades ago and decided upon
something along the lines of unicode instead of ASCII.
Cheers,
t.n.a.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | novnov | 2006-11-22 23:07:43 | Re: Multiple currencies in a application |
| Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2006-11-22 21:51:24 | Re: Data transfer between databases over the Internet |