Warp wrote:

>   UTF-8 encoding "wastes" some bits (in order to use less bits for the
> most used western characters) and requires at most 4 bytes per character
> (even though the characters requiring more than 3 bytes are very rarely
> used).

And thus, like any decent variable-length encoding scheme, it tries to 
assign short codes to common symbols. (Although UTF-8 probably fails 
horribly for, say, Japanese text. I don't actually know...)

>> UTF-16 another...  and raw storage the worst idea ever!
> 
>   Why would raw storage be the worst idea? There are several advantages.
>   The disadvantage is, of course, an increased memory requirement.

You win some, you loose some. Programming is all about these kinds of 
compromises. :-)

Post a reply to this message