Timeline for What is the advantage of choosing ASCII encoding over UTF-8?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2023 at 0:28 | comment | added | JoelFan | Did you mean "up to 32 bits"? | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 16:39 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 9, 2015 at 16:51 | |||||
| Jul 30, 2011 at 17:29 | comment | added | user1249 | @Pacerier, if you save XML as ASCII you need to use e.g.   for a non-breakable space. This is more filling, but makes your data more resistant against ISO-Latin-1 vs UTF-8 encoding errors. This is what we do as our underlying platform does a lot of invisible magic with characters. Staying in ASCII makes our data more robust. | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 17:06 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Thor that is exactly why i'm asking if saving as ASCII has any advantages at all | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 16:04 | comment | added | back2dos | @Pacerier: Any ASCII string is a UTF-8 string, so there is no difference. The encoding routine might be faster depending on the string representation of the platform you use, although I wouldn't expect significant speedup, while you have a significant loss in flexibility. | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 14:47 | comment | added | user1249 | If you have characters larger than unicode value 127, they cannot be saved in ASCII. | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 14:13 | comment | added | Pacerier | yes i'm talking about the 7-bit ASCII set. can you think of 1 advantage we will ever need to save something as ascii instead of utf-8? (since the 7-bit would be saved as 8-bit anyway, the filesize would be exactly the same) | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 13:45 | history | answered | user1249 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |