История изменений
Исправление saahriktu, (текущая версия) :
Причин много. Именно поэтому люди в других странах выбирают другие однобайтные кодировки. Поэтому, например, как я уже много раз говорил, в рамках проекта GNU развивается однобайтный текстовый редактор moe, который есть в репозитории Федоры. Его автор Antonio Diaz Diaz выбрал ISO-8859-15 вот по этим причинам:
Moe uses ISO-8859-15 instead of UTF-8 because an 8-bit character set
(combined with romanization if needed) can convey meaning safely and
more efficiently than UTF-8 can.
UTF-8 is a great tool for tasks like writing books of mathematics or
mixing Greek with Chinese in the same document. But for many other
everyday computing and communication tasks, an 8-bit code like
ISO-8859-15 is much more practical, efficient and reliable. There is no
such thing as an "invalid" or "out of range" ISO-8859-15 character.
UTF-8 is fine for non-parsable, non-searchable documents that must look
"pretty", but not so fine for things like configuration files or C++
source code. UTF-8 greatly hinders parsability (and may even become a
security risk) by providing multiple similar-looking variations of basic
alphabetic, punctuation, and quoting characters. UTF-8 also makes search
difficult and unreliable. For example, searching for a word like "file"
in an UTF-8 document may fail if the document uses the compound
character 'fi' instead of the string "fi".
Исходная версия saahriktu, :
Причин много. Именно поэтому люди в других странах выбирают другие однобайтные кодировки. Поэтому, например, как я уже много раз говорил, в рамках проекта GNU развивается однобайтный текстовый редактор moe, который есть в репозитории Федоры. Его автор Antonio Diaz Diaz выбрал ISO-8859-15 вот по этим причинам:
Moe uses ISO-8859-15 instead of UTF-8 because an 8-bit character set
(combined with romanization if needed) can convey meaning safely and
more efficiently than UTF-8 can.
UTF-8 is a great tool for tasks like writing books of mathematics or
mixing Greek with Chinese in the same document. But for many other
everyday computing and communication tasks, an 8-bit code like
ISO-8859-15 is much more practical, efficient and reliable. There is no
such thing as an "invalid" or "out of range" ISO-8859-15 character.
UTF-8 is fine for non-parsable, non-searchable documents that must look
"pretty", but not so fine for things like configuration files or C++
source code. UTF-8 greatly hinders parsability (and may even become a
security risk) by providing multiple similar-looking variations of basic
alphabetic, punctuation, and quoting characters. UTF-8 also makes search
difficult and unreliable. For example, searching for a word like "file"
in an UTF-8 document may fail if the document uses the compound
character 'fi' instead of the string "fi".