3 ms·
None of the other explicitly listed encodings are unicode encodings, and the "other" category is tiny. So the statement is still true. Some browsers don't even
by pmjordan 17y ago
None of the other explicitly listed encodings are unicode encodings, and the "other" category is tiny. So the statement is still true. Some browsers don't even support other unicode encodings, so this doesn't surprise me. UTF-16 is the only one that even stands a chance; I've never seen UTF-32 used for files, and I've never seen UTF-7 used at all. I suspect UTF-16 is more efficient than UTF-8 for east Asian scripts, but that advantage probably dwindles when content is gzipped.
It's good news that Google are now decomposing ligature codepoints, although I do wish they had a version of their search that was literal; especially with programming-related and other technical searches, the special characters it filters out are often crucial.
- robryan 17y agoThere's no way around the symbols being filtered out? I run into this all the time to, always assumed there would be a way around but never bothered to look into it.
- pmjordan 17y agoIf there is a way, I haven't found it. Enclosing the search terms in quotes sometimes seems to help a little.
- blasdel 17y agohttp://www.google.com/codesearch http://www.google.com/codesearch is literal, and even supports regular expressions! The kind of massive indexes needed to support it must be insanely unprofitable given its tiny userbase in a tiny market.