> -----Original Message-----
> From: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Starkey
> Sent: 4. maj 2005 05:35
> To: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Firebird-Architect] UTF-8 over UTF-16 WAS:
> Applications of Encoded Data Streams
>
>
>
> >
> >I think your life would be a lot easier to pick one internal
> encoding
> >for Unicode rather than two and I think that UTF-8 is the
> better choice
> >since it doesn't have endian issues or null bytes to worry about but
> >one way or another if you choose two different encodings
> internally you
> >will likely end up having to convert between them which adds
> an extra
> >encode or decode thats extra overhead.
> >
> Yes, indeed. Depending on language, utf-8 may be twice as
> efficient of
> utf-16 (ASCII, in specific) or slightly worse. Averaged
> across North America, South American, Europe, Australia,
> Antarctica, and Greenland,
> utf-8 is much better. In the final analysis, however,
> density isn't the controlling issue, code simplicity is.
> Utf-8 wins hands down.

What makes UTF-8 better suited for code simplicity than UTF-16? My opinion
is that it is the other way around. But maybe I'm wrong.

/Svend