> * Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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 :)
If you were sure ISO-8859-16 == LATIN10, I could add it. Ok, here is the modified encoding table (column1 is the standard name, 2 is our "official" name, and 3 is alias). If there's no objection, I will change them. 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 LATIN6 ISO_8859_10 ISO-8859-13 LATIN7 ISO_8859_13 ISO-8859-14 LATIN8 ISO_8859_14 ISO-8859-15 LATIN9 ISO_8859_15 ISO-8859-16 LATIN10 ISO_8859_16 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
