Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: How does arch/tla handle encodings?

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Marcus Sundman <address@hidden>

    > > > That said, I agree that UTF-8 is much better than UTF-16 in most
    > > > cases,

    > > Doesn't that depend on what (human) languages you are using most?

    > Indeed it does. And also what tools you use. On the one hand most Chinese 
    > characters are 2 bytes in UTF-16 while 3 in UTF-8, but on the other hand 
    > UTF-16 contains null bytes. And then it also depends on the access 
    > patterns. If you always want sequential access then UTF-8 might be OK, 
but 
    > if you often want to jump to specific locations then UTF-8 sucks big time.

In what way, if any, is UTF-16 better?   (Are you familiar with
"surrogate character" codepoints?  or with the distinction between
codepoints and glyphs?)

-t