Yannick Warnier wrote: > The basic functions offered by both extensions seem to be providing > *about* the same features, and I read a ppt presentation from Carlos > Hoyos [1] just saying this: > > " > PHP supports multi byte in two extensions: iconv and mbstring > * iconv uses an external library (supports more encodings but less > portable) > * mbstring has the library bundled with PHP (less encodings but more > portable) > " > > Is this really all there is to having two extensions providing > character encoding features? More or less, yes. > Is there any kind of strong difference in efficiency? I doubt it. It's not exactly a complicated function. > It's out of curiosity, so not urgent, but I'd like to be sure I do the > right choice next time around. Personally I use iconv, in PHP and elsewhere. I think it is most likely seeing a lot more use, and the socalled lack of portability is of zero concern to me. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
