Re: Translated IUC10 Web pages: Experimental Results

From: Alain LaBont/e'/ (
Date: Wed Feb 05 1997 - 13:54:21 EST

At 11:55 97-02-05 -0600, Johan Zeeman wrote:
>At 11:31 05/02/97 -0500, Alain LaBont/e'/ wrote:
>>Anyway the logic, one the source data has been normalized, should be the
>>same after all. I am pretty sure nobody uses UTF-8 or even entity names as
>>its canonical processing encoding... That would be a nonsense. But who
>>knows, masochism exists, I know (:

>Well ... in our bibliographic database, we intend to store UTF-8 in the
>database on the server, and have the client applications transform to 16-bit
>representations for processing. When a non-ASCII character is present maybe
>once in a hundred characters, the saving in storage is significant.
>My concern with delivering UTF-16 over http is not so much with the browser
>as with the other applications the document may be passed to. Think of all
>the folks who still use WP5.1 because they are comfortable with it.

Brilliant case in point, WP 5.1 uses 16 bits internally, it never works with
the external character set (; In fact it is an example to follow, a superior
technology as far as characters ets are involved, no conversion is ever
necessary when you change character set, believe it or not!

Alain LaBonté

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT