On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:

> UTF-8 uses 8-bit bytes. MS claims or claimed that UTF-16 is the best
> performance/memory trade-off.

What matters most is not performance nor performance/memory tradeof,
but more compatiblity, especially because UTF is encoding of strings..

It's for a very very good reason (and a clever one) that Ken Thompson
and Rob Pike did an UTF-8 out of UTF : the encoding of byte codes
for UTF-8 is the same as for ASCII for low-bit values. This makes
UTF-8 very interesting when UTF-8 documents are displayed on ASCII
using systems : there is little or no change to do to have a proper
display of UTF-8 there.

UTF-8 seems a better tradeof.

-- 
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ;
yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep