Lisa Moore wrote:
> Jianping wrote:
>
> only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
> UTF-16 support for RDBMS
>
> Whoa...let me interject, DB2 for OS/390 supports UTF-8 and UTF-16. And DB2
> for Intel, Unix, supported both much earlier. I cannot speak to Jiangping's
> intrepretation of "fully"
>
Th
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
Jianping Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So far, I can claim that only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
>> UTF-16 support for RDBMS, but unfortunately, as we cannot change the
exiting
>> utf8 definition from
At Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:43:42 -0700,
Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-16 not UTF-8.
I don't think your new UTF-16 propesal solves any problem. It's yet
another encoding. It wo
In a message dated 2001-06-11 21:46:38 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discussed on Unicore?
Please, don't excommunicate us non-members from the discussion by restricting
it to the members-only unicoRe list. We have something to contribute to
At Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:40:41 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, it will cause confusion, however stability, and 100% backwards
> compatibility is an overriding concern. I'd choose a little confusion
It's a BIG confusion.
> Oracle's had to do the same thing with their
> UTF8 character set to
Lisa asked...
> Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discussed on Unicore?
Well, theoretically perhaps, but personally speaking I believe that this
UTF-8 business is so choice and has such far-reaching implications for
every user and so many other standards that, like presidential private
lives,
Jianping wrote:
only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
UTF-16 support for RDBMS
Whoa...let me interject, DB2 for OS/390 supports UTF-8 and UTF-16. And DB2
for Intel, Unix, supported both much earlier. I cannot speak to Jiangping's
intrepretation of "fully"
Shouldn't a war about UTF-8 be discuss
Jianping Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So far, I can claim that only Oracle provides fully UTF-8 and
>> UTF-16 support for RDBMS, but unfortunately, as we cannot change the
exiting
>> utf8 definition from Oracle 8i as backward compatibility, we have to use
a new
>> character set name for it a
would end up with a stable solution. With UTF-8s we will be
fighting the problem forever.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:14 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
From: "Carl W.
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > If UTF-8S were to by some miracle be accepted by
> > > the UTC, implementers will be put out and offended
> > > for most of the next decade.
> > >
> >
> > If it is, that is rule of law from UTC.
>
> Very true.
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oracle is promoting and following the standard. Same as most other
database
> vendors, our database does not fully support supplementary character in
Oracle
> 8i and Oracle 7. But as we see the need to support it, we extend this
support
> in Oracle 9i.
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If UTF-8S were to by some miracle be accepted by
> > the UTC, implementers will be put out and offended
> > for most of the next decade.
> >
>
> If it is, that is rule of law from UTC.
Very true.
And if they vote against it, will you do the right
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
> > how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
>
> So many linguists afoot, and we will get bogged down in my attempts to
> provide a
From: "Jianping Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
> how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
So many linguists afoot, and we will get bogged down in my attempts to
provide a little spice to the subject?
The difference, of
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am proposing that we fix UTF-16.
Are you formally proposing this? For the next UTC meeting?
michka
(whoops, sent too soon!)
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am proposing that we fix UTF-16.
Are you formally proposing this? For the next UTC meeting? Without an actual
customer that is wanting it for an implementation I am pretty sure this will
be voted down pretty loudly.
michka
Is this the language that should be used in a professional way? I wonder
how could this happen to the Unicode mail list!
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
> >
> > Parse error at "lavicious
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
>
> Parse error at "lavicious". No such word appears in any English
> dictionary I own, not even the OED.
Sorry, that was to be lascivious.
Glad someone is still parsing in this thread.
m
Michael Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... asking for a lavicious license to be lecherously lazy
Parse error at "lavicious". No such word appears in any English
dictionary I own, not even the OED.
Rick
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:47 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 problems
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-1
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I first I thought the same thing but I have changed my mind. There are
> problems but the problems are with UTF-16 not UTF-8. I don't think that I
> am the only one who thinks that UTF-8s will create more problems that it
> fixes.
>
> Worse yet they w
of this proposal is that UCS-2 (plane 0 only) codes will sort in
the same order as the post transformed UTF-16 codes.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:22 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; unicode
Subject: Re: UTF-16 prob
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think that UTF-16x would be a better approach than UTF-8s. I am sure
that
> I have missed some issues feel free to comment. In any case UTF-16s would
> naturally be in Unicode code point order. It would be easy to transform
to
> UCS-2 for applicati
23 matches
Mail list logo
