From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 14:45:53 EST
I think Markus was referring to UTF-8 in the context of the message as a
"compression" format. And you would have to add that it is really good at
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
To: "Markus Scherer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thu, 2004 Jan 22 10:50
Subject: Re: Unicode forms for internal storage - BOCU-1 speed
> Markus Scherer scripsit:
> > UTF-8 is useful because it's simple, and supported just about everywhere -
> > but it's otherwise hardly optimal for anything.
> You entirely omit its principal advantage, sine qua non: it's maximally
> ASCII-compatible, using bytes 0x00 to 0x7F to represent ASCII characters and
> nothing else.
> Mark Crispin's UTF-9 (not to be confused with Jerome Abela's) is also
> excellent, although most of us don't have 36-bit systems, for which it
> makes sense. A precis:
> Code points (base 2) UTF-9 code units (base 2)
> 0000000000000abcdefgh 0abcdefgh
> 00000abcdefghijklmnop 1abcdefgh 0ijklmnop
> abcdefghijklmnopqrstu 1000abcde 1fghijklm 0nopqrstu
> This is almost as good as Latin-1 for its repertoire, only minutely worse
> than UTF-16 for the rest of the BMP, and beats all other encodings for the
> other planes.
> John Cowan <email@example.com>
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
> Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
> Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 16:39:47 EST