"Ruslan Nikolaev" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Sorry, if it's again top post in your mail clients. I'll try to figure out > what's going on later today. > > >> >> 1. Am I correct in all of that? > > Yes. That's the reason I was saying that UTF-16 is *NOT* a lousy encoding. > It really depends on a situation. The advantage is not only space but also > faster processing speed (even for 2 byte letters: Greek, Cyrillic, etc.) > since those 2 bytes can be read at one memory access as opposed to UTF-8. > Also, consider another thing: it's easier (and cheaper) to convert from > ANSI to UTF-16 since a direct table can be created. Whereas for UTF-8, > you'll have to do some shifts to create a surrogate for non-ASCII letters > (even for Latin ones). >
Yea, I need to remember not to try to post late at night ;)
