At 16:06 +0100 2001/06/11, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>Any XML tool is mandated to handle UTF-8, fwiw.
The main thing is that you are sure that Unicode editors supports UTF8. If
you are sure of that, then perhaps support for other Unicode encodings will
not be needed.
But past experience has shown that it is difficult to dictate what people
will use, so perhaps there pop up other favored formats than just UTF8.
> > But what says that UTF8 is the preferred format of editors;
>Unicode is an abstract encoding, of which UTF-8 is the commonest
>instantiation. So "simply use Unicode" does not mean much.
"Simply use Unicode" would probably mean to map the Unicode character codes
to say 32-bit binary numbers without first passing it through an encoding
like UTF8. Give this instantiation a name, like Unicode-32, if you like.
-- I think that one reason that people at this time look favorably at UTF8
over say Unicode-32 is that the former is somewhat more compact. However,
it will be slower, and one can just as well use a file compression scheme
on those, which would be more efficient than UTF8.
So for such reasons, I am not sure that UTF8 will become such a hit.