Subject Chinese/Korean (was Re: Non - printable characters in Stored Procedures)
Author hay77772000
Hi Helen, all,

I'm trying my best to get my head around what we need to do to
support Chinese (simplified) and Korean.

> languages. There's a lot-lot-lot more to that than just choosing
> a character set for the database, not least because of the severe
> limitations of UNICODE_FSS.
Would you mind explaining this a little further? Do you have any
experience of what we might run into?

Is there anyone out there that has actually used Firebird to support
simplified Chinese and/or Korean?

Many thanks,

David


--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@t...>
wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 5/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> >At 07:14 PM 05/11/2003 +1100, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > >If you are working with database default character set NONE
> > >(which I as one consider a cardinal sin), automatic charset
> > >conversion won't kick in, so you must add an "as ... charset
ASCII".
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Peter Jacobi
> >
> >Yeah, I would also like to know. I have never used anything else
other than
> >NONE, and it hasn't ever caused me problems that I am aware of.
>
> Nor I. But it would cause me problems if I wanted to deploy my
databases
> to countries that need a character set. In South Africa or the
UK, you
> could choose an ISO character set and localize using collations.
In *our*
> part of the world, we're more likely to be needing dual-language
> English/Japanese, English/Chinese or one or more of the Indo-
Chinese
> languages. There's a lot-lot-lot more to that than just choosing
a
> character set for the database, not least because of the severe
> limitations of UNICODE_FSS.
>
> Peter's warning is "on the button" for countries that have locales
and
> keyboards inputting characters that are not in US ASCII. However,
for
> English-speaking-only deployment, using a character set doesn't
necessarily
> solve or forestall any problems. Our keyboards don't come
standard with
> those extra keys for switching input character sets, either.
>
> IMO, it gets down to good old *requirements*.
>
> h.