On 22 Feb 2005 at 17:11, Lester Caine wrote:

>> Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>>
>>> No need to try to save cheap disk space. Using UCS-2 (if disregard
>>>some dead and rare languages) allow us to avoid buffer allocation
>>>problem. With utf-8 you never know how big translated string will
>>>be.
>>
>> Did you know all languages to say that they are dead and rare?
>> Why UTF-16 was invented?
>
>I think Dimitry was actually referring to UTF-32 and the reference to
>dead languages refers to those languages not yet covered by UTF-32.
>There are no entries for Egyptian hieroglyphics for instance ;)

If I ment UTF-32, I'd say UTF-32. IMHO, the main problem with all
versions of UTF encodings is their variable character length. No?
If anyone can name a language that (s)he would like to store in FB
but it is not presented in UCS-2, we can consider using UCS-4.
--
SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.