Doug Ewell wrote: > [...] > > we'd all use UTF-336. Er....? > > If only I had a bit more spare time, Jill. You do NOT want to get me > started... >:-)
Go for it, Doug! :-) If I only had a bit of spare time myself, I'd be eager of running bits-per-character statistics for UTF:-)336 in various languages... Something makes me think that it would rank even worse than UTF-32 and UTF:-)64. BTW, how about the convention of using the "UTF:-)" prefix for our bogus/model/parody UTF's? _ Marco
