> From: Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:17:42 +0100 > > I may be wrong here, but I'm fairly sure that the dominant unicode > library (IBM's ICU) is centred around UTF-16. That sounds like a good > reason for using it. Generally I've got the impression that UTF-8 is > much better for web use as it's more space-efficient, but it's also
Correction, Marcus. UTF8 is space-efficient only for languages of ROMAN group. If you try store Cyrillic-win or Cyrillic-mac that use 1 byte per Russian char, into UTF8 you start eat 2 bytes. For Japan language one char that use 2 bytes in UTF16, will eat 4 bytes in UTf8. So UTF8 is good only for small set of languages. > apparently slower to process than UTF-16, which would explain the > choice in a library. > > I know that Valentina went UTF-16 for precisely this reason. -- Best regards, Ruslan Zasukhin VP Engineering and New Technology Paradigma Software, Inc Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information http://www.paradigmasoft.com [I feel the need: the need for speed] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
