Re: [RFC] moving translations off sheets ?

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

> According to Cyrille Chepelov <chepelov@calixo.net>:
> >
> > [***] Yes, I know that UTF-8 is actually just a payload encoding standard for
> > multi-byte characters of relatively arbitrary length, and that the meaning
> > of which sequence of bytes means what character is left to the underlying
> > encoding. I'll assume for the moment that UTF-8 is just a better way to
> > store Unicode stuff.
>
>
> Cyrille,
>
> What about using UCS-2 instead for internal purpose ?

To my knowledge, the only major user of UCS-2 is Windows.  There are
already code points allocated above the 16 bit limit, so it isn't
`universal'.  UTF-16 doesn't seem to offer much of a benefit over UTF-8
either.  Both are variable length encodings, but UTF-8 strings can be
treated like normal C strings in most cases, and UTF-8 strings can
represent the whole character space.

That and the fact that GTK+ 2.0 and libxml2 both use UTF-8 seem like good
enough reasons to go with UTF-8 over UCS-2.

James.

-- 
Email: james@daa.com.au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/