On 4/17/09, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > ISTM that one of the uses of this is to say "store the character
> > that corresponds to this Unicode code point in whatever the database
> > encoding is"
>
> I would think you're right. As long as the given character is in the
> user's character set, we should allow it. Presumably we've already
> confirmed that they have an encoding scheme which allows them to store
> everything in their character set.
It is probably good idea, but currently I just followed what the U&
strings do.
I can change my patch to do it, but it is probably more urgent in U&
case to decide whether they should work in other encodings too.
--
marko
