W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: UTF-16, UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE in HTML5

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:39:44 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1EuvdRQTK0A84-Oc1QOvi9jLDwS8CdXEVMPMP@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org, www-international@w3.org, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
utf-16 is less than 0.01% (all three types together); and utf-32 is
essentially zero.

Mark

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 08:57, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
> > My reading is that UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE aren't ruled out, just that they
> > need to be specified with Content-Type. They could be discouraged (like
> > UTF-32) or banned (like UTF-7), but I don't have much of an opinion on
> the
> > matter.
>
> As of January, a Google sample of a few billion web pages showed that
> UTF-8 and ASCII were used to encode almost 70% of the Web.  Latin-1
> and friends were another 20%, and all other encodings combined were
> about 13%.  UTF-16 and friends are probably less than 1%.
>
> See
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S2Hcx0fITQI/AAAAAAAAFmM/ifZX2Wmv40A/s1600-h/unicode.png
> .
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:40:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:40:18 GMT