On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Vinnie wrote: > > > Note that both UTF-8 and UTF-16 are capable of representing > > the full range of Unicode characters. Conversion between the two is > > lossless. You seem to be under impression that UTF-8 is somehow > > deficient, only suitable for "legacy" encoding. This is not the > > case. > > Yeah thats what they say...but if thats the case then why use UTF-16 > at all? What is the benefit for supporting UNICODE? Why is there
Because, for example, some systems supported UCS-2 to begin with, and UTF-16 is the upgrade path from UCS-2, and as painless/painful as the ASCII->UTF-8 upgrade path. Nico -- _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
