2015-10-15 17:52 GMT+03:00 André Somers <an...@familiesomers.nl>: > Op 15-10-2015 om 14:52 schreef Konstantin Ritt: > > > > > > For everything but US-ASCII / Latin-1, UTF-8 isn't faster than UTF-16 > > (feel free to compare their complexity against UTF-32). > > And why "pure Chinese signs" again? Did you ever look into the > > Unicode's Scripts.txt [1], for example? It clearly shows UTF-16 covers > > [almost] all spoken languages, without any performance hits (in > > compare to UTF-8), and all we have to pay is an extra byte per every > > Base Latin character (in compare to UTF-8, again). > > > > [1] http://www.unicode.org/Public/8.0.0/ucd/Scripts.txt > > > "All we have to pay"? Isn't that quite a significant cost, if your every > other byte in your data is going to be null?
Only for US-ASCII / Latin-1. Regards, Konstantin
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
