My understanding is that UTF-8 uses only one byte when the character is in the ascii range. Take care, Rynhardt * Gaijin <gaijin at clearwire.net> [100804 10:37]: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
