Re: UTF-8 can be used for more than it is given credit ( Re: UTF-7 - is it dead? )

From: Mike Ayers (mayers@celequest.com)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2006 - 15:13:09 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: UTF-8 can be used for more than it is given credit ( Re: UTF-7 - is it dead? )"

    John D. Burger wrote:
    > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
    >
    >> Show me someone who can fill a modern hard disk with only raw text
    >> (Unicode is just that, raw text) encoded in UTF-32. Even UTF-256 would
    >> not do it.
    >
    > Huh? There's a lot of text out there. I'm pretty sure that Google's
    > cache fills far more than one hard disk, for instance.

            This discussion is a wee bit off base, IMHO. When I hear professionals
    discussing size tradeoffs, it's not in the context of disk space, but of
    moving the data around, especially over the network. If you have to buy
    not just (approximately) two more disks to serve the same content (in
    UTF-32 as opposed to UTF-8) to the same number of people, but two more
    servers to process it and/or double your internet bandwidth, then you
    are talking about painful expenditures.

            HTH,

    /|/|ike

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 15:25:26 CDT