• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
• From: "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@h...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:21:11 +0000
• Bcc:
• In-reply-to: <063801c520bd$41fe74b0$c970fea9@CMHNovannet>
• Reply-to: joe@r...

é??头, "pinhead" was the best Google translator could manage :)

Joe

>From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@n...>
>To: <xml-dev@l...>
>Subject:  But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and 
>ideograms
>Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:22:41 -0500
>
>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?
>
>William J. Kammerer
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
>To: "'William J. Kammerer'" <wkammerer@n...>;
><xml-dev@l...>
>Sent: Friday, 04 March, 2005 07:54 AM
>Subject: RE:  [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is
>missing from the UCS ?
>
>
> > 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/
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>

• References:
  • But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
    • 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 ismissing from the UCS ?
• Previous by thread: But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
• Next by thread: RE: But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread