• To: "'William J. Kammerer'" <wkammerer@n...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:54:17 -0000
• In-reply-to: <05a301c520b6$ecfc46a0$c970fea9@CMHNovannet>
• Thread-index: AcUgtzbGDugOlyjkTc227uTq680IjAAAegCg

> I can't comment on the usability of any alphabet other than Latin, but
> is it "fair" that Chinese ideograms chew up tens of thousands of code
> points in Unicode? 

It's balanced by the unfairness that Latin letters only occupy one byte in
UTF-8, whereas Chinese ideograms occupy three or four.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

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

• References:
  • Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ?
    • From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@n...>

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