Lists Home |
Date Index |
Uh, yeah it sort of depends on your processing model I guess - the main
reason I use UCS-2 is I can get to character n in constant time.
With utf-8, character n is reached in time proportional to n. Maybe
thats OK for you - I don't find it so great though.
On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 11:37 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:27:15PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org scripsit:
>>> Lets move on. UTF-8 is your transfer encoding, use UCS-2 in memory
>>> (unless planning to process ancient Sumerian or something - then use
>>> UCS-4) and lets all move on to something remotely interesting.
>> In CJK environments, using UTF-16 for transfer makes sense, because
>> imposes a 50% growth in the size of native-language characters.
>> That's basically why XML requires both UTF-8 and UTF-16 support of all
>> conforming parsers.
> And using UCS-2 for memory encoding is also in a lot of cases
> a really bad choice. Processor performances are cache related nowadays.
> Filling them up with 0 for half of your data processed can simply
> trash your caches. I will stick to UTF8 internally, it also allows
> some processor to use hardcoded CISC instructions for 0 terminated C
> strings (IIRC the Power line of processors have such a set of
> Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
> email@example.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/