RE: That UTF-8 Rant (was Unicode in source)

From: Addison Phillips (AddisonP@simultrans.com)
Date: Thu Jul 22 1999 - 13:10:57 EDT


Well, I hit send before I meant to (got interrupted).

Surrogates are quite important and cannot be ignored (I should have said
"must not")... but they are *still* easier to handle with wide characters
(UCS-2 or UCS-4) than with UTF-8!

I didn't mean to repeat myself about text expansion... must have encoded it
as ... ;-)

All I'm really saying here is that people should quit picking UTF-8 for the
wrong reasons (because it kinda works like ASCII) and do a real, full
implementation of Unicode... and that, if you're doing that already, you
ought to consider using a wide character implementation over UTF-8 unless
there is a compelling reason to choose the other.

Really, I'm not an anti-UTF8 bigot and don't want to drag on about this, but
it seemed to me that too many people think UTF-8 is the easy way to get
Unicode because ASCII is ASCII and they can still scan for "\" and other
foolishness.

AP



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT