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 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:58 UTC