On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:42:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > > I didn't call utf-8 itself rubbish, I am myself a strong proponent for > > utf-8, only your quote that it is "about as compact as an extended encoding > > is going to get". > > I should have qualified it with "that is both 8-bit and backward- > compatible with ASCII". Other encodings will be more compact, but > AFAIK there isn't a more compact UCS encoding, though UTF-16 /might/ > be more compact for certain languages, albeit without any 8-bit > backward compatibility. Actually, SCSU and BOCU-1 are potentially more compact, assuming the text can be compressed. However, they are not backward-compatible with ASCII; SCSU comes closer than BOCU-1. As a practical matter, nobody of any importance actually uses SCSU or BOCU-1, except for Reuters (with SCSU). -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature