Am 23.02.2012 18:35, schrieb Warp:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>> As an alternative, forget UTF-8 and go for UTF-16.
>
>    UTF-16 is more compact if the text consists mostly of non-ascii
> characters, especially if it contains eg. kanji symbols, hiragana, etc.
> (The vast majority of Japanese kanji can be expressed with 2 bytes using
> UTF-16 but require 3 bytes with UTF-8.)
>
>    However, if the text consists mostly of ascii characters, such as
> English usually does, then UTF-8 is more compact than UTF-16 (which will
> basically double the size of the file).

I guess a factor 2 in text stream size is not a serious problem with 
today's internet bandwidths.

>    Support for UTF-16 is still relatively poor (although getting better).
> Most modern browsers should handle it ok, though, but it requires for the
> server to send the proper http header to tell the browser the encoding,
> and configuring the server to do this might not be trivial. (A html file
> encoded in UTF-16 will look like garbage.)

It didn't sound like Andy would want to retrieve the XML file from a web 
server, but rather directly from the local file system. Otherwise he 
could simply go for server-side XSLT processing.

Post a reply to this message