From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 26 10:42:51 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 26 May 2007 10:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hs0Ho-0003O9-4N for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 10:42:45 -0700 Received: from 25.mail-out.ovh.net ([213.186.37.103]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hs0HN-0003M8-MJ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 10:42:25 -0700 Received: (qmail 20091 invoked by uid 503); 26 May 2007 17:39:57 -0000 Received: (QMFILT: 1.0); 26 May 2007 17:39:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail79.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 25.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2007 17:39:57 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2007 17:42:12 -0000 Received: from 83.40-225-89.dsl.completel.net (83.40-225-89.dsl.completel.net [89.225.40.83]) by ssl0.ovh.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 19:42:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1180201332.46587174569c6@ssl0.ovh.net> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:42:12 +0200 From: m.kornig@sondal.net To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: my first Lojban words 1.1 References: <1180122807.46573eb7554e4@ssl0.ovh.net> <1180197748.46586374b33be@ssl0.ovh.net> <4658687D.70909@spamcop.net> In-Reply-To: <4658687D.70909@spamcop.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Originating-IP: 89.225.40.83 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: 6 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4708 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: m.kornig@sondal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Selon Charles Duffy : > Now, mind you, if you had some program that claimed to be a text editor > and which didn't have proper Unicode support, UTF-8 would look > completely normal except for high characters (where it would depend on > whether that program was UTF-8 aware -- which quite a lot is these > days), whereas UTF-16 would be funky even for standard ASCII. > Generally, it makes sense to use UTF-8 if a document is mostly low ASCII > characters, or UTF-16 if it's mostly Unicode characters not found in low > ASCII. What about Japanese: is it mostly (or totally) low ASCII? Martin