• To: veillard@r...
• Subject: Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:36:47 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <AF104122-E511-11D6-BFB3-0030657E2F34@m...> <200210211640.MAA28778@m...> <20021022173710.E12115@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Daniel Veillard wrote:
> ...
> 
>   And using UCS-2 for memory encoding is also in a lot of cases
> a really bad choice. Processor performances are cache related nowadays.
> Filling them up with 0 for half of your data processed can simply
> trash your caches. I will stick to UTF8 internally, it also allows
> some processor to use hardcoded CISC instructions for 0 terminated C
> strings (IIRC the Power line of processors have such a set of instructions).

The costs and benefits of UTF-8 are well-known. Random-access at the 
character level becomes quite inefficient. Neither UCS-2 nor UTF-8 are 
right as the in-memory model for all applications.

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
    • From: tblanchard@m...
  • Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: XML 1.1 Names
• Next by Date: XML 1.1 documents
• Previous by thread: Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
• Next by thread: Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread