--- In Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com, "mailmur" wrote:

> And then simple queries like:
> Select * From table Where mystrcol = "Könkkä"
>
> Should play well with the charset defined in column/table/database,
> without extra collaction syntax in a query.

What are you doing? These queries do work right for me
any time.

Perhaps there is some middle layer to blame, when using
.Net provider or JDBC, but whether testing with ISQL
or straightforward using the C API, there is no problem
with this query. (There is a problem with UPPER, as
uppercasing is ASCII only in too many cases, but that can be
circumvented).

> Even most simple queries
> in FB are not compatible to other unicode-aware databases, where all
> this is not an issue.

Please show me an ISQL script demonstrating such a major defect.

> In the year +2000 all international-aware dbapps should use the
> unicode charset. And then dbserver should eat it transparently.

Why are you so eager, to take functionality away from users?
Voting for enhanced UNICODE support is'nt the same as
voting to kill 8-bit charsets.

Regards,
Peter Jacobi