*ALL* talk about Unicode is dangerous ;-). Your description is of UTF-8, which can use 1, 2, 3, or 4 bytes per character, while UTF-16 uses only either 2 or 4. Both are variable-length encoding, although the variability of UTF-16 is... strange.
sas On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 9:51 PM Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike Schwab wrote: > > >Would UTF-16 to UTF-8 be a better conversion? You still have to be > > >certain of the source character set. And is supported by some z/OS > > >software. > > > > As Cameron indicated, your comment doesn't quite make sense. UTF-16 is > just a variable-length encoding, in which basic ASCII* > (0-127) are single-byte, some characters are two-byte, some three-, and > some four-. More efficient, especially in the "mostly basic > ASCII" case. > > > > *Yes, I know, talking about "ASCII" in the context of Unicode is dangerous > and arguably incorrect. You know what I mean. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
