Antoine,
I pretty much agree. I copied most of the message, since yours
might have bounced to Unicore.
On the second point you added,
although, technically 16-bit users may have come first, I think
UTF-8 users dominated early, so I wouldn't necessarily give favor
to utf-16 users. But it's a sad
I guess I should be bounced at unicoRe. I hope the interested people
will monitor unicoDe.
Tex Texin wrote:
I am losing track of the discussion, so I decided to create my
own score sheet.
I welcome the initiative. However, I have a couple of minor points
I feel uncomfortable with.
So far
Tex,
I don't really intend to maintain this list however. If someone else
wants to, I am fine with their taking over it.
I'll give up my copyright to it... ;-)
I really don't think we need a list. I think the real issue is that the
people who proposed UTF-8s presumed that they could use
Tex Hi, I am losing track of the discussion, so I decided to create my
Tex own score sheet. So far I have:
opinion
Indeed. I would contend that anything inspiring this quantity of confusing
(to me anyway) verbiage is probably dubious at best. A good sign that the
answer lies
Tex,
Hardware improves cpu performance 1% in a week.
This is not true. If they are not processing the data they can use UTF-16.
So why UTF-8? Yjeu plan to use the data in their processing. To do that
they will have to develop a whole new set of support routines that will run
slower that
Hi Carl,
I agree with you.
My comment on cpu performance was meant to be interpreted in
contrast to the claim
that re-sorting utf-8 data as if it were utf-16 data will cost 1%.
The fact that CPUs increase performance by doubling every 18 months,
or by 1% a week, means that the 1% cost for
Keep the medal, send the pay raise to the address below!
(Mark, it really was no problem)
tex
Mark Leisher wrote:
Lack of attention to the judicious editing principle (may Sarasvati overlook
the slip) led my earlier post to be construed as criticism of Tex's summary.
Not so. He should
7 matches
Mail list logo
