Bogus UTF's are back! :-) (was RE: Non-ascii string processing?)

From: Marco Cimarosti (
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 02:46:10 CST

Doug Ewell wrote:
> [...]
> > we'd all use UTF-336. Er....?
> If only I had a bit more spare time, Jill. You do NOT want to get me
> started... >:-)

Go for it, Doug! :-)

If I only had a bit of spare time myself, I'd be eager of running
bits-per-character statistics for UTF:-)336 in various languages...
Something makes me think that it would rank even worse than UTF-32 and

BTW, how about the convention of using the "UTF:-)" prefix for our
bogus/model/parody UTF's?

_ Marco

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST