From: Kent Karlsson (kent.karlsson14@comhem.se)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2008 - 06:04:57 CST
Michael S. Kaplan wrote:
> Having flown halfway around the world to talk to people who
> for whatever
> reasons, both valid and invalid (and not really
> distinguishing which is
> which on their list of concerns), are unhappy with a language
> encoding that
> in their view doubles or worse the amount of bytes used to
> store their
> language in Unicode, I can tell you that this as very real
> concern on some people's minds.
I guess that referred in particular to Tamil.
Just out of curiosity: has anyone made any actual storage
requirements measurements on actual typical texts encoded
according to Unicode (UTF-8/UTF-16) versus according to
their proposal? Both pure "plain text" (Tamil only) and,
say, moderately embedded in HTML markup.
If so, what were the results?
/kent k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 07 2008 - 06:08:08 CST