> Note that both UTF-8 and UTF-16 are capable of representing > the full range of Unicode characters. Conversion between the two is > lossless. You seem to be under impression that UTF-8 is somehow > deficient, only suitable for "legacy" encoding. This is not the > case.
Yeah thats what they say...but if thats the case then why use UTF-16 at all? What is the benefit for supporting UNICODE? Why is there UTF-16 support in SQLite? To be honest, thinking about character encodings gives me a large headache even though I've been programming for decades. I figured that supporting wide characters will be somehow beneficial for international users...I hope I was not mistaken but it was not a small amount of extra work. Although I have (hopefully) written everything to work with narrow characters by flipping a switch. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
