On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:04:57PM -0700, Steve Holmes wrote: > This is an interesting area but isn't utf-8 becoming the defacto > standard and the ultimately better way to go? I don't know about better, myself. UTF uses twice as many bits as iso-115x. and while I may wish to support the new UTF format, I feel no need to work in it. I just feel that wasting space is space wasted, both on my hard drives, no matter how big they get, and a waste of processing power. My LiteTalk hardware synthesizer was made prior to UTF, and the computer will just have to convert everything from UTF back to iso-1159, just so I can hear the computer. My computer doesn't need to be multilingual. I only speak English, and for most things, I convert everything to plaintext. It is guaranteed to work with every piece of equipment I own, takes little effort on the CPU's part to shovel it into any synthesizer, and takes up less space. I figure with double the character bit-width, compressing a UTF file with gzip would take as much space as an uncompressed iso file. I might as well go back to Windows, start over-clocking, and use a win-modem if I'm going to waste CPU cycles like that. ;p Michael
