* 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 :) Patrice -- Patrice Hédé email: patrice hede à islande org www : http://www.islande.org/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
