On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>
> Le 15 févr. 08 à 19:22, Vincent Massol a écrit :
>
>>> I think it is a safe move, as any modern system supports UTF-8
>>> (given
>>> that XWiki requires java 5, we can assume it will be in a modern
>>> system). This has the advantage that the code will be simpler, as we
>>> don't have to check and switch encodings, but has the disadvantage
>>> that
>>> mysql has to be manually configured for UTF-8, as by default it
>>> comes in
>>> latin1.
>>
>> Isn't this a problem with databases which are configured in ISO8859-1
>> by default most of the time?
>
> I believe this is always a question of connection and not of the
> database itself. But that's just my hint.
> A related but not equal matter is the sorting, or ?
>
>> Same question for the servlet container.
>
> The servlet container would default to the platform's encoding which
> is not always latin1. But I think that the only place this is
> relevant is at the encoding for URL-encoded values... and these are
> recommended to be utf-8 by the new URI spec.
>
> I do not know if there's any vote I can express but I would strongly
> vote with -1 for 1 and 3 and stick to utf-8 for greatest simplicity
> and finally really really reach readable URIs.
>
> paul
>
> PS: except for simplicity I have never met anyone refusing to try to
> set utf-8 as standard for everything.