Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious why you think that UTF-8 requires complicated lookup tables. Because in the end it's still a Unicode encoding, and still has to deal with BS like "equivalence", right? Which is not mechanically encoded in the err, encoding (e.g. all characters with the same bit pattern there are equivalent) but needs external tables for that.
But that's the same for UTF-16 and UTF-32. That's why I was wondering why you singled UTF-8 out, implying it needed extra handling.
And I added that while this might need some lookup tables, we already have those in UTF-8 too anyway (a non fixed width encoding).
So the reason I didn't mention UTF-16 and UTF-32 is because those are already fixed-size to begin with (and increasingly less used nowadays except in platforms stuck with them for legacy reasons) -- so the "competitor" encoding would be UTF-8, not them.