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

From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Mon Jun 05 2006 - 04:33:04 CDT

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

    From: "Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se>
    > And here Moore's law comes into play again, as RAM becomes
    > increasingly cheap.

    Moore's law has nothing to do here. Even though RAM is getting lower per megabyte, the modern programs use more memory and handle more data. But the major issue is in networking. That's where the need for multiple compatible encodings orutFs and compression technicsare needed.

    But don't forget databases. They are stored on disks, and disk accessb is always too slow. what you read from disk will end into memory and will swap to disk. If you can't handle the strict natively in memory exactly the way it is stored, the swapping to disk will require more disk space.

    I don't presume which encoding is better for all. Application and networking tuning (andinteroperability) is as much important! UTF-8 is excellent for interoperability in heterogeneous environment, and is supported by the most important number of protocols. UTF-32 is not, and it wastes space except for local handling of small quantities of texts, which is otherwise represented and stored or transmitted differently, only because it's more convenient for interoperation.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 05 2006 - 04:52:10 CDT