• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
• From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:09:52 -0500
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <063801c520bd$41fe74b0$c970fea9@CMHNovannet>

William J. Kammerer wrote:
> But then is it "fair" that English requires a whopping 19 bytes to
> transmit "microencephalopathy," or even 13 bytes for the Germanic
> "pinheadedness," when there's probably an efficient ideogram or two
> (requiring only 6 to 8 bytes total) for the same concept in Chinese?

Recent compression breakthroughs have tilted the fairness scale back towards
English:  "m17n" or "p11s" can whoop even a single ideogram.


/Jelks

• References:
  • But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
    • From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Schema, BNF and parsing
• Next by Date: RE: Schema, BNF and parsing
• Previous by thread: RE: But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
• Next by thread: Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT ismissing from the UCS ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread