Andy Heninger writes: > Performance tuning is easier with UTF-16. You can optimize for > BMP characters, knowing that surrogate pairs are sufficiently uncommon > that it's OK for them take a bail-out slow path. Sure, but if you are using UTF-16 (or any other multibyte encoding) you loose the ability to index characters in an array in constant time. For some applications that isn't desirable. -tree -- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Sr. Sinostringologist http://www.basistech.com "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support David Starner
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Yung-Fong Tang
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Markus Scherer
- RE: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Yves Arrouye
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Andy Heninger
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Andy Heninger
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Andy Heninger
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Andy Heninger
- RE: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Tom Emerson
- RE: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Carl W. Brown
- RE: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Tom Emerson
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: 3rd-party cross-platform UTF-8 support Tom Emerson