On 2021-02-13, TimS  wrote:

> On 13 Feb 2021 at 21:05:47 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:42:37 -0500
>> "Mayayana"  wrote:
>>
>>>    So all I was saying was that UTF-8 was far easier than
>>>  any other approach, using "wide characters", when it came
>>>  time to fully support all languages under one system. Even now
>>>  I'm not sure how much it's really used.
>>
>>  Anyone who has to support multiple languages tends to use unicode
>> internally for the sake of sanity (I was for a while internationalisation
>> specialist (among other hats) on the Yahoo! front page team). We had loads
>> of fun with external feeds claiming to be ISO8859-1 and sending Win-1252 -
>> they're almost but not quite the same.

I was a fan of ISO 8859-1 for a long time; it was the Amiga's native
encoding right from its introduction in 1985.  I've now switched to UTF-8.

> I convert everything to UTF-8. Windows tends to lie about which code-page
> it's using, anyway.

Windows still has remnants of UTF-16 in various places.

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /        |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05