- From: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:01:34 -0700
- To: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>
- CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hi Andrew, As this topic is saying that encoding in UTF-8 does not significantly increase the size of the page, I think it is reasonable to point out the fact that some legacy encodings need multiple bytes to encode a character anyway, and to not mention rendering or layout issues. Regards, -Dan Andrew Cunningham wrote: > On Wed, October 29, 2008 5:06 am, Dan Chiba wrote: > >> These would be more accurate if revised to: >> >> "In addition, many legacy encodings for complex scripts are already >> multibyte, eg, Chinese." >> >> > > I'd probably avoid mentioning complex scripts here. Would complicate > things. Esp since in horizontal mode, Chinese doesn't require complex > rendering or text layout. It is would more likely be treated as complex > script in vertical mode. > > Most complex script legacy encodings that I've worked with are not > multibyte encodings. Whether you are looking at South-East Asia, South > Asia or Central Asia most legacy encodings 8-bit encodings. > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 22:02:23 UTC