[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...

• To: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Subject: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:09:04 -0800
• Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@S...>,xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3FBFF345.9040407@a...>
• References: <004201c3af99$e9944010$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <3FBDAFDA.3010905@a...> <3FBDF386.9090307@a...> <20031121.121152.50253888.Tony.Graham@S...> <3FBE14D8.7040405@a...> <p06010201bbe4835029d4@[192.168.254.4]> <3FBFF345.9040407@a...>

On Nov 22, 2003, at 3:37 PM, Alaric B Snell wrote:

> Good point, actually... I suppose that, in general, any language which 
> uses more than 256 code points in general use is actually quite likely 
> to be a language that uses one code point per word.

No, actually.  I don't know much about Chinese, but the average number 
of characters/word in Japanese is two point something; you have to 
learn 1700 or so characters to get out of Japanese high school, and 
literate people pick up quite a few more.  Korean Hangul are syllabics 
and thus there are naturally several per word.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • [offtopic] Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@S...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RE : Comparison of Xml documents
• Next by Date: Re: RE : Comparison of Xml documents
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: [offtopic] Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread