
Google: Unicode conquers ASCII on the Web - cstejerean
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9936329-39.html?tag=blog.1
======
pmjordan
_One disadvantage Unicode has over ASCII, though, is that it takes at least
twice as much memory to store a Roman alphabet character because Unicode uses
more bytes to enumerate its vastly larger range of alphabetic symbols._

LIES. A decent (though brief) article about increasing Unicode use on the web,
and then they write this in their last paragraph. They even _mention_ UTF-8!

Here's the original source of the data:

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/moving-to-
unicode-51....](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/moving-to-
unicode-51.html)

~~~
aston
Clarification on parent: One of the best parts about UTF-8 is that ASCII text
is also valid UTF-8-encoded text.

~~~
pmjordan
Sorry, I kind of assumed that the HN crowd would know this. (judging by the
comments - maybe the silent, lurking masses don't, I don't know) I've read a
few too many articles with glaring mistakes today.

If you're reading this, are even vaguely technically inclined and don't know
what we're talking about, please read

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8>

~~~
mullr
The fact that this is so often gotten wrong by very smart people (in my
experience) that I think we should consider it a design defect.

~~~
mullr
To be clear: Unicode v.s. specific encoding terminology is my gripe. The
'UTF-8 is ascii at the bottom' is quite cool.

------
pkrumins
is all wrong!

