Thanks. On 27 September 2015 at 20:42, Páll Haraldsson <pall.haralds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > UTF-16 was earlier (strictly speaking UCS-2) and Windows adopted it (and > also used elsewhere..). UTF-8 is almost in all cases better (except in > East-Asian languages, but not even there, if you use, something HTML (or I > guess XML..), that has has lots of ASCII for tags etc.): > > http://utf8everywhere.org/ > > -- > Palli. > > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6:14:34 PM UTC, Daniel Carrera wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I just read of Wikipedia that UTF16 is not compatible with ASCII, but >> UTF8 is a proper super-set of ASCII. If that's the case, why would anyone >> use UTF16String instead of UTF8String? It seems like UTF8 has the lowest >> probability of creating hassle down the road. Every valid ASCII string is a >> valid UTF8 string. But at the same time, presumably UTF16 would not have >> been invented if it didn't serve some purpose. Does anyone know what the >> advantage of UTF16 is? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel. >> >
