You are tremendously wrong. Almost every legacy CJK encoding encodes a string in the smaller number of bytes than UTF-8 when the string in question has no unsupported characters in it. I have seen lots of (mostly misguided) people who prefer those legacy encodings over UTF-8/16 solely for this reason.
Comments
You are tremendously wrong. Almost every legacy CJK encoding encodes a string in the smaller number of bytes than UTF-8 when the string in question has no unsupported characters in it. I have seen lots of (mostly misguided) people who prefer those legacy encodings over UTF-8/16 solely for this reason.