Geoff Worboys wrote:

>Are we sure that we should not seriously consider UTF-16?
>
>
>

What is the benefit of UTF-16? To the best of my knowledge, there are
no strings that can be represented in UFT-16 in less bytes than UTF-8
(Chinese exempted. I don't really know anything about Chinese, but I
can wing it). On the other hand, the existence of Chinese doesn't get
UTF-16 out of the multiple-segment character representation business.
If UTF-16 doesn't solve the multi-segment character problem and is less
efficient that UTF-8, what could it possibly have going for it?

So, make a case for UTF-16 and we'll consider it.