Le 30 oct. 06 à 16:31, Mark J. Reed a écrit :
NO.
All UTF's are able to encode *E0XACTLY* the same set of characters.
That's the whole point of Unicode. The UTF's specify the nit-picky
details about how to actually represent Unicode text in bytes, but the
Unicode text itself is a stream of characters, and it is not affected
by the encoding method used.
OK, then i don't need to use UTF-16 for anciant chinese.
may be the question of the word length is a question of speed with a given computer, i thought morden computesr are able to address at the byte level even if the word in RAM is a mutibyte one ?
I've studied computer internal on (before) mid-seventennth ;-)
<snip />
In the case of UTF32 there are other possibilities, wherein the bytes
within a short word are arranged in big-endian order while the short
words within a long word are arranged in little-endian order, or
vice-versa; these don't have short names and are of mostly
historical/theoretical interest these days.
utf-8 is only usefull because of indianness then ...
thanks for your time and your acurate answer.