On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 09:05 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote: > > I'll look over the proposal more carefully when I get time, but the > > most important issue is to not let the storage type leak into the > > interface. > > Agreed, > > > From an implementation point of view, UTF-16 is the most efficient > > representation for processing Unicode. It's the native Unicode > > representation for Windows, Mac OS X, and the ICU open source i18n > > library. UTF-8 is not very efficient for anything except English. Its > > most valuable property is compatibility with software that thinks of > > character strings as byte arrays, and in fact that's why it was > > invented. > > If UTF-16 is what's used by everyone else (how about Java? Python?) I > think that's a strong reason to use it. I don't know Unicode well > enough to say otherwise.
I disagree. I realize I'm a dissenter in this regard, but my position is: excellent Unix support first, portability second, excellent support for Win32/MacOS a distant third. That seems to be the opposite of every language's position. Unix absolutely needs UTF-8 for backward compatibility. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe