On 13 May 2004 at 16:18, pavel_menshchikov wrote:

>> A common narrow character set supports 256 (or more likely 192)
>> characters.
>The differences in "constructions" are clear. I wonder why Alan
>doesn't recommend to use unicode to novice programmer?

Probably, he doesn't want to answer questions like "why my data is
not sorted properly?"...

>I've read (in IB or FB documentation as I remember) that IB/FB
>internally uses unicode to store/manipulate string values, and
>converts strings for clients as specified (character set/collation).
>Is it right?

No. Unicode is used here and there, but commonly strings are kept
as is.

>Am I doing something wrong? Or FB 1.5 still has no full support for
>unicode?

The latter. Unicode is not developed properly.

SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.