On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:39:58AM -0500, Aman Chawla wrote:
> > What's your point in continuing this? Most of the people on this list
> > already know how UTF-8 can expand the size of non-English text.
>
> The issue was originally brought up to gather opinion from members of this
> list as to whether UTF-8 or ISCII should be used for creating Devanagari web
> pages. The point is not to criticise Unicode but to gather opinions of
> informed persons (list members) and determine what is the best encoding for information
> interchange in South-Asian scripts...
That's sort of like going into a Islamic shrine and asking who the one
true god is. The answer they will give is predicatable, and arguing
about the answer will start to annoy people, especially if you don't
seem to be listening.
And you don't seem to be listening. The factor is not a factor of 3.
UTF-16, which IE supports (I believe) and Netscape 6 supports, will give
you a constant factor of 2. If you use UTF-8, HTML markup will
make the factor considerably smaller, and if you have many graphics,
their size will easily dwarf that of the text.
For a comparison, yahoo.com sans graphics is 20k, 6k of text and 14k of
HTML. A Devangari page, therefor, should be about 32k, a factor of 1.5,
not 3.
-- David Starner - starner@okstate.edu, dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber) Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 01:01:33 EST