4 ms·
Unicode is that better encoding. The "small and efficient per locale encoding" that you proposed was the status quo, and was an endless source of mojibake. Ther
by estebank 2y ago
Unicode is that better encoding. The "small and efficient per locale encoding" that you proposed was the status quo, and was an endless source of mojibake. There is a reason we moved away from that.
- smaudet 2y agoI think there is a misunderstanding, which I tried to address but evidentally failed. UTF-8 is fine for a display encoding. However, not every string encoding need be a display encoding, which the parent post seems to not be considering. You could also have multiple display encodings, if it makes sense to (a tool only intended for use in a certain part of the world for instance), however that is not what I mean.