Horton

Re: UTF8 or Unicode

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>, dpage@vale-housing.co.uk, oliver@opencloud.com, zakkr@zf.jcu.cz, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2005-02-25T15:33:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think this is what we should do:
>> 
>> UNICODE => UTF8
>> ALT => WIN866
>> WIN => WIN1251
>> TCVN => WIN1258

> OK, but what about latin1?

I think LATIN1 is fine as-is.  It's a reasonably popular name for the
character set, and despite Tatsuo's complaint, it's not going to confuse
anyone in practice --- the 7-bit version of that standard has no traction.
The reason UNICODE is a bad name for UTF8 is exactly that there are
multiple physical encodings of Unicode that are in common use.

			regards, tom lane