From: Dmitry Turin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 01 2007 - 15:03:26 CST
>> but also simplifies comparison of various variants of spelling
>> (all letters are lower-case, first letter is upper-case, all
>> letters are upper-case), because comparison is reduced to
>> comparison in one variant of spelling (all letters are lower-case).
OS> case-invariant comparison,
OS> your proposition requires removal of your “marks”, whilst the
OS> Unicode way requires case folding.
Excuse me, what is the "case folding" ?
OS> Both are commensurably cheap operations, on contemporary computers.
I forgot to say, that these two symbols was developed to reduce
case-invariant comparison to rough equality of strings
>> Eternity (unlimited time) is before us !
>> You [i. e. Philippe Verdy] are seggesting to carry
>> gasket through future time !
OS> - demonstrate, how the cost of adapting all existing text-
OS> processing software to your scheme can be afforded by the
Less quantity of algorithms,
less mistakes during realization in new software.
On long time, it economize any (how much big) money.
OS> Note that any new encoding scheme will not render
OS> the existing software less complex; rather, the software will
OS> become more complex, as it will have to cope both with legacy,
OS> and new, data.
Your assertion is wrong: look at line of any product, e.g.
Windows 3.1 - Windows 95 - Windows NT - Windows 2000 - Windows XP.
Or e.g. Office 95 - Office 2000 - Office 2003.
__Exactly saving of old libraries is reason of
heavy-weight-ness, impossibility to debug, hunging__ .
Whole rendering of markup language is bulky and
redundant for textual file (in which a little particular
cases are necessary).
OS> Above all, your proposition will not work, at all, as the
OS> details of case-mapping vary with the language.
>> Give me _concrete_ examples of word/phrase,
>> which you don't know how to write within my proposal,
>> and i will send you _concrete_ answers.
OS> Take, as an example, «Izmir» (in Turkish spelling), or «Izmir»
OS> (in German spelling), respectively, the name of a Turkish town.
OS> In your scheme, both of these spellings would be «?izmir»,
OS> where «?» is your capitalize-initial mark.
«?izmir» will be rendered as "Izmir",
where both "izmir" and "Izmir" consist of:
turkish letters in first case,
and consist of latin letters in second case.
Where is a problem ?
>> (2) My proposal not only economize mark-place in table of encoding
OS> only five† scripts featuring cases
Agreed. But my proposal is developed also for encoding with only
actual alphabet letters.
OS> - and, above all, you would have to convince everybody that
OS> the effort would be worthwile and they should join your plan.
It was easy in Soviet Union, when whole country obey single plan
(organization, creating plan, had name "GosPlan").
But it's very hardly in capitalism.
OS> than the duty of this list’s subscribers to point out every single flaw
OS> in your proposition.
I'm thankfull for this (alsolutely seriously).
Unicode2 (2.1.1) http://unicode2.chat.ru
HTML6 (6.4.2) http://html60.chat.ru
SQL5 (5.4.0) http://sql50.chat.ru
Computer2 (2.0.3) http://computer20.chat.ru
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 01 2007 - 23:58:16 CST