> > But HTML meta tags used to use their own encoding names such as
> > x-euc-jp, x-sjis....
>
> Not sure, my mozilla understand "ISO-xxxx-x", "Shift-JIS" format too.
> But it's irrelevant, important is that something like "Latin2" or "SJIS"
> or "EUC_JP" are less standard names. And here aren't HTML only, but other
> formats too (I-MODE, Wap, XML ...etc).
They were introduced recently. If I remever correctly, when I started
to implemnet the multi-byte fucntionality, most of browsers did not
accept "Shift-JIS" as their meta tags.
> > Well, the reaons are:
> >
> > 1) shell does not like "-" (configure and some Unix commands in
> > PostgreSQL accepts encoding names)
> >
> > 2) I don't like longer names
>
> Sorry, but both are great traverses and please never say "I don't like"
> if you talking about already existing standards, it's way to chaos.
>
> Sorry of this hard words, but I hope you understand me :-)
Please understand there is no standard for charset/encoding names in
SQL92/99 itself. The SQL standard just says "you can import any
charset/encoding from anywhere if you can". Please correct me if I am
wrong.
However, I do not object to change encoding names if there are enough
agrees (and as long as the backward compatibilities are kept).
> > BTW, I and Thomas (and maybe others) are interested in implementing
> > CREATE CHRACATER SET staffs in SQL92/99. The encoding names might be
>
> Well, I look forward.
Good.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
