Op 15-10-2015 om 18:40 schreef Konstantin Ritt:
2015-10-15 17:52 GMT+03:00 André Somers <an...@familiesomers.nl
<mailto: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.
What percentage of the strings you deal with in your applications falls
withing that category? I can tell you that for us (dealing with
databases, XML, etc.) that percentage is quite high. Even if we do
translate our user interfaces to support Chinese among other languages.
The vast majority of the strings in our application would fare very well
with UTF-8 indeed. The user visible strings are but a tiny fraction. You
have also been shown the source for Google.cn page as a nice example.
André
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
