> When your case for "UTF-16 is not an irredeemable format" is "it's better than UTF-8 at a task where nobody would use either format anyway", you're not making

> When your case for "UTF-16 is not an irredeemable format" is "it's better than UTF-8 at a task where nobody would use either format anyway", you're not making a strong case. Haha this is pretty fair; I know I'm being pedantic. But I wouldn't say any GB* encoding is better than UTF-16. Another commenter pointed out that you really want the ability to--say--paste arbitrary text into an editor and for that editor to be using an encoding that can handle it. Or even for the web, if we actually took the Accept-Language header [0] seriously, that could also be a big savings. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-5.3.5 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-5.3.5