- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:12:23 -0800
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 13:13:08 UTC
On Mar 5, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > Speaking as a Java programmer, I do not find UTF-8 to be less Java > friendly than UTF-16. Both UTF-8 and UTF-16 need to be passed through > a Reader on input and a Writer on output for any sort of robustness to > apply. Which one I choose to use is almost never based on Java's > internal storage format for Strings. I can't deny your experience, but speaking as a Java *and* C programmer, my experience is different. I have the choice of generating text in my own language's idiomatic style, *or* of putting it through an output filter. Output filters are not free and every cycle burned up in the XML-generation phase is being stolen from business logic. One very small example: I recently wrote an XML-generation library for C (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/02/20/GenxStatus) and in order for maximum usability by C programmers, it only knows UTF-8. Thus, it can't be used without extra filtering for any protocol that chooses to say "only UTF-16". -Tim
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 13:13:08 UTC