At 11:31 05/02/97 -0500, Alain LaBont/e'/ wrote:
>Anyway the logic, one the source data has been normalized, should be the
>same after all. I am pretty sure nobody uses UTF-8 or even entity names as
>its canonical processing encoding... That would be a nonsense. But who
>knows, masochism exists, I know (:
>
Well ... in our bibliographic database, we intend to store UTF-8 in the
database on the server, and have the client applications transform to 16-bit
representations for processing. When a non-ASCII character is present maybe
once in a hundred characters, the saving in storage is significant.
My concern with delivering UTF-16 over http is not so much with the browser
as with the other applications the document may be passed to. Think of all
the folks who still use WP5.1 because they are comfortable with it.
J. Zeeman
CGI Group
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT