At 11:55 97-02-05 -0600, Johan Zeeman wrote: >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 (: >> [Johan]: >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. Brilliant case in point, WP 5.1 uses 16 bits internally, it never works with the external character set (; In fact it is an example to follow, a superior technology as far as characters ets are involved, no conversion is ever necessary when you change character set, believe it or not! Alain LaBonté QuébecReceived on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 11:02:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC