Subject | RE: [firebird-support] 60 chars in a 50 field |
---|---|
Author | Chad Z. Hower |
Post date | 2005-02-26T18:47:09Z |
:: If you use the new character set UTF8. Old character sets
:: (UNICODE_FSS) will continue to have the old behavior. Which
Is UTF8 a new 2.0 option? Even then characters are not always a single byte
in UTF8 - so will it account for this properly too?
:: by the was is not uncommon in other databases - MySQL
:: certainly behaves that way.
MySQL isnt the database I would par yourself against. That's like saying
"Well VB does it this way"
:: (UNICODE_FSS) will continue to have the old behavior. Which
Is UTF8 a new 2.0 option? Even then characters are not always a single byte
in UTF8 - so will it account for this properly too?
:: by the was is not uncommon in other databases - MySQL
:: certainly behaves that way.
MySQL isnt the database I would par yourself against. That's like saying
"Well VB does it this way"