Unless you're of the opinion that Unicode itself is a mess that we would 
be better without.
But by now that's hardly a choice anymore...

	Johnny

Gilbert Fernandes skrev:
> 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.
>