Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:20:43 -0800 (GMT-0800), Mark Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> The topic came up in a UTC meeting some time ago, a "UTF-8S". The
> motivation was for performance (having a form that reproduces the
> binary order of UTF-16).
This is unfair: it slows down the conversion UTF-8 <-> UTF-32.
In both cases the speed difference is almost none, and it's a big
portability problem. I hope that such trash will not be accepted.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
QRCZAK
- [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Elaine Keown
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Tague Griffith
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Tex Texin
- RE: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Carl W. Brown
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Jianping Yang
- RE: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Marco Cimarosti
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? J M Sykes
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Mark Davis
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? J M Sykes
- Re: [OT] Unicode-compatible SQL? Tague Griffith

