Le 01.11.2007 22:15, Orchid XP v7 nous fit lire :
 >>> 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. :-)

Raw storage is the worst, because they are still adding glyph in
unicode...
When it started, you could have used only 16 bits... now you can't
anymore.
It's not about programming, but "selling" the concept. Raw storage
means no coding, no signaling of actual number of bits used...

On one side, you have billions of people just happy with only 7
bits. May be even with 6 bits it would be enough (you do not need
all these letters in double, do you ? ten number (roman did it with
6 or 7 glyphs) and a few ponctuations signs.)
And other billions which could probably be fine with a fixed 16
bits... maybe not, they are still adding!
and people in the middle, (japanese recommended 1945... and all the
other countries...)
And there is the few who want to be able to mix everything at the
same time in the same document.


UTF-8 is interesting for the 6 bits people, as they do not loose too
much storage and it's simple.
(far more than all the old trick of "active page" and such coding).
But UTF-8 nowadays can extend to already 4 x 8 bits ( or worse ?).
What would have happened if the basic byte was 9 bits long instead
of 8 ? Would they go by 4, or would 3 have been enough ?
Obviously all latin-european coutries would have fit on the same
page of 512, and maybe we would still be playing with paging-code ?
(No thanks!)


-- 
The superior man understands what is right;
the inferior man understands what will sell.
-- Confucius

Post a reply to this message