[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)

• From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@n...>
• To: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:41:14 -0800 (PST)

On 17 Nov 1999, Steinar Bang wrote:

> >>>>> "Don Park" <donpark@d...>:
> 
> > I was born in Korea so I appreciate your position.  However, your
> > opposition of SML is based on the assumption that SML will only
> > support UTF-8.  The list of SML features is preliminary and,
> > personally, I do not mind seeing SML support both UTF-8 and UTF-16
> > although not necessarily at the same time since the application
> > might require either encoding but not both.
> 
> Er... AFAIK you can represent the exactly the same characters in UTF-8
> and UTF-16, since both are transformation formats of the full 32 bit
> Unicode.  Maybe I'm missing something here...?

I think his point was that UTF-8 imposes a 50% size penalty over UTF-16
for typical CJKV text.



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parser compliance
• Next by Date: Grafting DOM on a C++ XML parser?
• Previous by thread: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by thread: Re: Parser compliance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread