From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 15:10:33 EST
Mark Davis <mark dot davis at jtcsv dot com> wrote:
>> Of course, no compression format applied to jamos could
>> even do as well as UTF-16 applied to syllables, i.e. 2 bytes per
> This needs a bit of qualification. An arithmetic compression would do
> better, for example, or even just a compression that took the most
> frequent jamo sequences. Perhaps the above is better phrased as 'no
> simple byte-level compression format...'.
Yes, that's what I meant: a compression *format* like SCSU or BOCU-1, as
opposed to a (general-purpose) compression *algorithm* like Huffman or
LZ or arithmetic coding. The distinction makes sense in the context of
my paper, but I probably should have explained it here.
BTW, the paper is awaiting final comments from one last reviewer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 15:52:23 EST