|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 05/28/06 14:28
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Toby Inkster wrote:
> > 81672 May 27 13:34 bbc-chinese-utf16.html
> > 43759 May 27 13:33 bbc-chinese-utf8.html
....
> > 141476 May 27 13:43 boc-tw-utf16.html
> > 73144 May 27 13:44 boc-tw-utf8.html
>
> Though both of these are probably a bit more
> markup-heavy/content-light than I would care to write.
Very well - you're free to offer your own examples - I can't read
Chinese anyway. But that still doesn't address the other points I
made, about browser and search engine support, etc.
Anyway, here's a couple of W3C formal documents in "Simplified
Chinese" translation, picked more or less at random, again after
character encoding conversion using Mozilla Composer:
204638 May 28 11:58 rdfconcepts-utf16.html
119672 May 28 11:59 rdfconcepts-utf8.html
93112 May 28 12:02 XHTML10-gb2312.html (original)
168120 May 28 12:03 XHTML10-utf16.html
102106 May 28 12:03 XHTML10-utf8.html
Keep in mind that in going from utf8 to utf16, you are typically
saving one in three bytes per character of Chinese payload, but you
are doubling the number of bytes for markup, URLs etc. It's a
delicate tradeoff! I haven't yet seen a real web page where utf16
wins (I don't *think* there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
way I'm doing this), but you're free to produce examples.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|