From: Sinnathurai Srivas (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2008 - 12:06:06 CST
There is also this question, when is it feasible to introduce complex
rendering and when it is feasible not to introduce complex rendering. Do we
have a cut-over point, such as character counts or any such criteria?
When is this complex rendering non-working situation going to change.
Particularly in Publishing. I think primarily, the scripts need support for
publishing rather than applications or web applications though these are
important too. When is the problem inherent to publishing using
Unicode-complex rendering going to be resolved. Is it time to think of
redesigning the encoding itself or do we wait for a few more years?
Finally, when will we be even consider the phenominan of bitmap characters
in Unicode? (Hand held or giant machinery!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Davidson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Michael S. Kaplan" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<email@example.com>; "William J Poser" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 07 February 2008 17:31
Subject: Re: minimizing size (was Re: allocation of Georgian letters)
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 3:22 AM, 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.
>> True or false, it is on their minds. They can all add and multiply, and
>> it certainly looks like a 2x or 3x situation to them.
>> And we get a lot further by acknowledging their concerns and then
>> showing them that they have less to be concerned about than they think,
>> in the end, then we ever would by telling them there are wrong, wrong,
> One mitigating factor is that many document formats have at least an
> option to employ some form of compression. For example, both OOXML and
> ODF are zip-archived XML, which means that most text will usually end up
> being compressed. If one is concerned about sending HTML over the wire,
> then one can use HTTP compression. Obviously these are general-purpose
> compression algorithms, not text-specific ones, but they still should be
> able to help. Actually, in most XML and HTML documents, a large
> proportion of the characters are ASCII markup anyway, so the overall
> expansion is not going to be 2x or 3x in the first place. Furthermore,
> in many cases the size of the text in any form is less significant than
> the size of other data such as images.
> Douglas Davidson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 07 2008 - 12:07:47 CST