On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:21:57 +0100 Tony Whyman via Lazarus <lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
>[...] > Lazarus is already a UTF8 environment. > > Much of the LCL assumes UTF8. True. > UTF8 is arguably a much more efficient way to store and transfer data It depends. > UTF-16/Unicode can only store 65,536 characters while the Unicode > standard (that covers UTF8 as well) defines 136,755 characters. No. UTF-16 can encode the full 1 million Unicode range. It uses one or two words per codepoint. UTF-8 uses 1 to 4 bytes. See here for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-16 Although you are right, that there are still many applications, that falsely claim to support UTF-16, but only support the first $D800 codepoints. > UTF-16/Unicode's main advantage seems to be for rapid indexing of large > strings. That's only true for UCS-2, which is obsolete. > You made need UTF-16/Unicode support for accessing Microsoft APIs but > apart from that, why is it being promoted as the universal standard? Who does that? Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
