"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> From: "Jianping Yang" <Jianping.Yang@oracle.com>
>
> > > 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.
>
> <devil's advocate> And if they vote against it, will you do the right thing
> in THAT case as well -- never emitting this invalid form of UTF-8 again?
This is already achievable in Oracle 9i by specifying Oracle client character
set to AL32UTF8 or by using UTF-16 interface.
> Or
> will Oracle et. al. choose to ignore the law if the decision does not go
> their way?
>
This will depend on the type of application. If the database is part of an
application, the application has its own choice of character set it can receive
and send to the database, providing it only sends and receives the standard
UTF-8 to/from you.
>
> Just trying to help folks determine if all of this is being done for the
> good of the standard (as has been claimed here many times).
>
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. 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 as AL32UTF8.
J.P.
>
> michka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT