▲ | gpvos 2 days ago | |||||||||||||
It made much more sense than UTF-16 or any of the existing multi-byte character sets, and the need for more than 256 characters had been apparent for decades. Seeing its simplicity, it made perfect sense almost immediately. | ||||||||||||||
▲ | blindriver a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
No, it didn't. Not at the time. Like I said processing and storage were a pain back around the 2000-ish time. Windows supported UCS-2 (predecessor to UTF-16) which was fixed width 16-bit and faster to decode and encode, and since most of the world was Windows at the time, it made more sense to use UCS-2. Also, the world was only beginning to be more connected so UTF-8 seemed overkill. NOW in hindsight it makes more sense to use UTF-8 but it wasn't clear back 20 years ago it was worth it. | ||||||||||||||
|