Re: UTF-2, UTF-8, unicode, Oracle question

From: Misha Wolf (
Date: Tue Jul 07 1998 - 16:56:50 EDT

It is my understanding that the first one has the Korean Hangul
syllables in the old location and the second one in the new location.

If you don't have any pre-Unicode 2.0 Hangul syllables, you should be
using the second one. If you do have pre-Unicode 2.0 Hangul syllables,
you should migrate them to their Unicode 2.0 locations and then start
using the second one.

If you have no plans to store Hangul syllables, you would probably be
OK with the first one for a while, but this might be problematic, as
it probably doesn't support any of the other characters added since
Unicode 1.1.


> Hello,
> I am trying to decipher the nuances in Oracle's implementation of UCS.
> In their 7.x documentation they write that their character set,
> AL24UTFFSS, is a UTF-2 implementation.
> In their 8.x documentation, they say that AL24UTFFSS is a UTF-8
> implementation of unicode 1.1 and their character set UTF8 is an
> implementation of unicode 2.0.
> Can anyone explain to me the possible differences between these
> characters sets, as well as implications that would come about by
> implementing AL24UTFFSS now, with a planned migration to UTF8 in the
> future?
> Thanks,
> -Tom

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT