Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL?

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 17:41:13 EST


Unfortunately, the issue at this point is that some companies have either
already accepted it or in the process of accepting it now.

MichKa

Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <qrczak@knm.org.pl>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL?

> Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:20:43 -0800 (GMT-0800), Mark Davis
<markdavis34@home.com> pisze:
>
> > The topic came up in a UTC meeting some time ago, a "UTF-8S". The
> > motivation was for performance (having a form that reproduces the
> > binary order of UTF-16).
>
> This is unfair: it slows down the conversion UTF-8 <-> UTF-32.
>
> In both cases the speed difference is almost none, and it's a big
> portability problem. I hope that such trash will not be accepted.
>
> --
> __("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
> \__/
> ^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
> QRCZAK
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:18 EDT