Geoffrey, http://userguide.icu-project.org/conversion/converters says:
"Since ICU uses Unicode (UTF-16) internally, all converters convert between UTF-16 (with the endianness according to the current platform) and another encoding." That said, I don't think it's a major concern because ICU works on byte streams. It's not like these strings will persist internally somewhere eating lots of memory. >From experience, the old WTF in-place converters found in WebKit "mobile" ports of past were way-buggy and probably only ever tested with ASCII. I'd say use ICU and don't look back :-) Alp. On 06/10/2013 20:08, Geoffrey Garen wrote: >> There is an issue with ICU: it uses UTF16 as its internal representation, >> while most of the Web nowadays is UTF8. Therefore, page text goes through >> unnecessary encoding conversion, and takes more memory than in UTF8 (for >> most of languages). So it might be not a good development direction to tie >> up WebKit to ICU. > Is there a benchmark or website that can verify these claims? > > Thanks, > Geoff > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev -- http://www.nuanti.com the browser experts _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
