xml-dev - RE: [xml-dev] But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideogram

RE: [xml-dev] But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideogram

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms
From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu>
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@novannet.com>

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