Encoding issues

Receiving a request to add ISO 8859-15 and 16, I review the multibyte
support code and found several errors in it.

1) There is a confusion between "LATIN5" and ISO 8859-5. LATIN5 is not  ISO 8859-5, but is actually ISO 8859-9. Should
werename LATIN5 to  "ISO8859-5" (or whatever) as the encoding name? I think we should.  For your information, here are
thecorrect mapping between ISO  8859-n and LATINn.
 
  ISO 8859-1    LATIN1  ISO 8859-2    LATIN2  ISO 8859-3    LATIN3  ISO 8859-4    LATIN4  ISO 8859-9    LATIN5  ISO
8859-10   LATIN6
 

2) The leading characters for some Cyrillic charsets are wrong.

Currently they are defined as:

#define LC_KOI8_R    0x8c    /* Cyrillic KOI8-R */
#define LC_KOI8_U    0x8c    /* Cyrillic KOI8-U */
#define LC_ISO8859_5    0x8d    /* ISO8859 Cyrillic */

These should be:

#define LC_KOI8_R    0x8b    /* Cyrillic KOI8-R */
#define LC_KOI8_U    0x8b    /* Cyrillic KOI8-U */
#define LC_ISO8859_5    0x8c    /* ISO8859 Cyrillic */
   The impact of correcting them would be for users who are storing   their data into database using MULE internal
code.I think they   are quite few people using MULE internal code. So we could correct   them for 7.2.
 

Comments?

BTW, should we support ISO 8859-6 and beyond for 7.2? There have been
some requests to do that. Supporting them are actually trivial works,
should be one day job. The harder part is writing conversion function
between encodings. However, there is very few demands to do that, I
guess. If so, we could ommit the conversion capability for 7.2.
Comments?
--
Tatsuo Ishii