2.0

[Charles Yeomans]

On Mar 11, 2004, at 11:13 AM, jda wrote:

>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't get your point. Lynn implied that UTF-8 wasn't as good as 
>>> UTF-16 at handling Japanese. That is wrong.
>>>
>> I suppose I don't get the point of the entire discussion. It appears 
>> to me that UTF-16 is a better choice than UTF-8 for Valentina.
>>
>
> Why?

First of all, the storage requirements of UTF-8 v. UTF-16 aren't 
important; it wouldn't surprise me if the differences were dominated by 
the overhead of Valentina's own filesystem format.  Disk space is 
cheap.  What does matter is speed, and it appears to me that UTF-16 is 
better suited for the sort of string manipulation required for indexing 
and other such database operations.  You might take a look at 
<http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn12/>.

Charles Yeomans