Oh no, not Unicode again

[jda]

>
>
>QUESTIONS:
>
>-- Classic still important ?
>    or Carbon is enough ?

Classic is still important for me.

>    classic can do Unicode work ?

Not sure.

>   
>
>-- show we have the same and only
>             String and VarChar fields
>
>    with addition of 'encoding' parameter?
>    although this way looks to be hard for UTF16

I'd much prefer UTF8 (which is the "native" RB format). Or at least the choice.



>
>
>-- or we should get new 2 fields
>
>             UString
>             UVarChar
>
>     how other dbs do this ?
>
>Just want to hear what you know about this?

For me, support for TEXT is what's important (all "language" fields are TEXT).

Jon