On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 23:30, Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not use SCSU? > > You get the small size and the encoder/decoder aren't that > complicated.
Hmm... I had skimmed the SCSU document a few days ago. At the time it seemed a bit more complicated than I wanted. What's nice about UTF-8 and UTF-16-like encodings is that the space usage is predictable. But maybe I'll take a closer look. If a simple SCSU encoder can do better than more "standard" encodings 99% of the time, then maybe it's worth it...
