From: Marco Cimarosti (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 10:13:53 EDT
John Aurelio Cowan wrote:)
> Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> > Talking about the format of mapping tables, I always
> > wondered why not using ranges. In the case of ISO
> > 8859-11, the table would become as compact as
> > three lines:
> Well, that wins for 8859-1 and 8859-11 and ISCII-88, where Unicode
> copied existing layouts precisely. But it wouldn't help other 8859-x
> much if at all,
All 8859 tables would be more succint.
Non-Latin sections use contiguous ranges of letters in alphabetical order
or, however, in the same order used by Unicode; this is also true for most
other non-ISO charsets.
Latin sections are a worse case, but they still benefit slightly, because
characters shared with Latin-in stay the same positions.
> and it requires binary search rather than direct
> array access, which would be a terrible lossage in CJK, where the
> real costs are.
I agree. In the case of CJK it simply doesn't pay.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 11:10:18 EDT