From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Another point to keep in mind is that UTF16 is not really any easier
> to deal with than UTF8, unless you write code that fails to support
> characters outside the basic multilingual plane. Which is a restriction
> I don't believe we'd accept. But without that restriction, you're still
> forced to deal with variable-width characters; and there's nothing very
> nice about the way that's done in UTF16. So on the whole I think it
> makes more sense to use UTF8 for this.
I feel so. I guess why Windows, Java, and Oracle chose UTF-16 is ... it was
UCS-2 only with BMP when they chose it. So character handling was easier
and faster thanks to fixed-width encoding.
Regards
MauMau
