The main criteria in determing whether a code page sucks? Suckage, of course!

by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2007/08/30 03:16 -04:00, original URI:

Rasqual asks:

Hello Michael,

I'll keep the question short:

What makes a 'good' encoding, and what makes it broken?

When I think back to the various code pages that I have considered to be broken in one way or another:

And I really can't discern any particular pattern in them -- some just have weird implementation issues, some are done in less than ideal ways, and some are simply outright broken.

So it seems like any code page that has troubles is one that I would call broken. I have pretty high standards here, like I do in other areas. :-)


This post brought to you by (U+104b, a.k.a. MYANMAR SIGN SECTION)

Mihai on 30 Aug 2007 8:18 PM:

The answer is way simpler: any encoding that is not Unicode is broken :-D

(although Unicode is not an encoding, is a code page :-)

Michael S. Kaplan on 30 Aug 2007 9:07 PM:

Ah, but there is UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32, plus the endian issues. So there are lots of Unicode....

Plus there is a difference between being broken and sucking. :-)

Please consider a donation to keep this archive running, maintained and free of advertising.
Donate €20 or more to receive an offline copy of the whole archive including all images.

referenced by

2008/09/14 Johab to be kidding me!

go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day