>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote (2007-03-26 13:54:44): > Bernt M. Johnsen wrote: > > >We should stick to Unicode only. To do otherwise will complicate code > >and documentation without giving the users a better tool. > > In SQL terms this is the "character repertoire", UCS for Unicode > (section 4.2.4 & 4.2.8). > > A SQL character set is more than just a character repertoire (section > 4.2.7). > > Dan.
Thanks for the clarification, Dan. I suppose that nobody suggests we should support more than one "character repertoire", namely Unicode. But another issue, since a character set is composed a repertoire, an encoding and a collation, will not the only encoding supported by Derby be utf-16, since that is the native encoding of Java strings (regardless of the fact that Derby for the moment stores string on disk as utf-8)? -- Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
