Lists Home |
Date Index |
yes it was a bit facetious as a comment. personally i think that one of
best parts of xml and unicode and utf is how it has moved the internet
from a very western centric view to a very global view and continues to
the original post was about the fairness of the number of coding symbols
in various languages. the rest belongs and has been discussed in a few
of the permathreads (like information content vs bits to transmit)
> rick said:
>> what if i proposed a "green" xml. transmitting bits requires energy.
>> large character sets mean that you have to transmit more bits and
>> thus use more energy and contribute to global warming. so in an
>> effort to improve the green credentials of xml we should really try
>> to get by on as few letters as possible. my suggestion would be a-z
>> (you probably noticed my lack of interest in capitalisation), 0-9,
>> some punctuation ., a few useful symbols <>&?[! and every culture
>> (including latin languages) can adapt.
>> oh, yeah - better add all the symbols needed for smileys - have to
>> have priorities here.
> And your point?
> 1. What you describe above, is what we have already done.
> 2. As for "green", we (English speaking countries) comprise
> approximately 3 percent of the worlds population while consuming the
> far more than our "fair" share of natural resources, and everything
> else for that matter -- much like what we've done in number 1.
> Something akin to fractals, large consumption pattern simply composed
> of smaller repeating habits.
> 3. As for transmitting bits, larger char-sets do not mean larger
> transmission. It only means that the scope of char-sets has been
> expanded -- we cannot go back. It cost as much to say 8-bits in Latin
> as it does to say 8-bits in Chinese.
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530