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