> > The question is really why 8/16/32 bit Unicode is better than 5bit (ACE)? > > ACE and UTF-8 are just compression algorithms that squeeze larger > Unicode characters. ACE is more efficient than UTF, although more > complex. > > But the claim to fame that UTF-8 has is that it is a standard that > idn can reference, and it is coming into widespread use elsewhere. > > So moving to UTF-8 long term seems like such an obvious choice > is surprises me that it even gets debated. > > Of course, Punycode is a nice compression method... Maybe we should > take it to the Unicode forum and suggest that it be the next version of > UTF-8? > > But if that doesn't happen, it should logically be phased out.
That's right if ACE is such a good "compression and encoding" scheme for Unicode, I think Unicode consortium should adopts it as the new UTF-P or UTF:-P, if they already have UTF8 that is widely use nowadays and also will be more use in the future, why not use UTF8 as a long term, and re-inventing the wheel now.
