> * Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> [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 :)
If you were sure ISO-8859-16 == LATIN10, I could add it.
Ok, here is the modified encoding table (column1 is the standard name,
2 is our "official" name, and 3 is alias). If there's no objection, I
will change them.
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 LATIN6 ISO_8859_10
ISO-8859-13 LATIN7 ISO_8859_13
ISO-8859-14 LATIN8 ISO_8859_14
ISO-8859-15 LATIN9 ISO_8859_15
ISO-8859-16 LATIN10 ISO_8859_16
