Re: New article for REVIEW: Upgrading from language-specific legacy encoding to Unicode encoding

Richard Ishida wrote:

> Comments are being sought on this article

| UTF-16 is often used for the system back-end.

You have "no byte order problem" for UTF-8, so you might
add a note about UTF-16LE vs. UTF-16BE below UTF-16.

And another note that u+10000 etc. needs two UTF-16
"half words" (please replace correct term).

| Font display problems:

|    Legacy code pages (eg ISO-8859-1/windows-1252)

That example isn't convincing, use something else,
e.g. Latin-2 and MacRoman.

| Page weight / download cost is not really an issue
[...]
| the difference between legacy encoding and Unicode
| encoding is quite negligible.

Maybe s/Unicode/UTF-8/, you're talking about bytes
later.

| HTML head, eg, <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" [...]

Maybe add a third example for XML:
 <?xml version="1.1" encoding="utf-8" ?>

                     Bye, Frank