Re: utf-8 vs. utf-32

From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 23 2002 - 11:17:08 EDT

  • Next message: Karl Ove Hufthammer: "Re: representing characters (was Re: A quick clarification please."

     --- Tomas Frydrych <tomas@frydrych.uklinux.net>
    wrote: >
    > > Andrew Dunbar wrote:
    > > I want the piecetable and layout engine to work
    > for
    > > all the world's languages. Being optimized for
    > speed
    > > is also good. I won't sacrifice #1 for #2.
    >
    > The question of choosing utf-8 over utf-32 or vice
    > versa has nothing
    > at all to do with the combining characters. utf-8
    > does not make
    > handling combining characters easier, nor does
    > utf-32 make it
    > more difficult, or the other way around. utf-8 will
    > not make AW any
    > more capable of handling all world's languages than
    > utf-32. utf-8
    > requires more processing time for all people, utf-32
    > more memory
    > for most people. That's the only objective issue in
    > making the
    > choice. Another, subjective, issue to consider is
    > that transition to
    > utf-32 will be very simple and transition to uft-8
    > will not.

    I didn't think people understood the combining
    character issue well enough but it seems they do now.
    You're completely right and I think I'm sold on the
    idea of UTF-32 internally now that we've wrangled it
    all out.

    Andrew Dunbar.

    > > Microsoft Word handles these things well.
    > MS Word does not use utf-8 internally. But that is
    > neither an
    > argument for using it, nor for not using it.
    >
    > Tomas
    >

    =====
    http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Everything you'll ever need on one web page
    from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
    http://uk.my.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 11:18:23 EDT