From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2010 - 08:13:26 CDT
Kannan Goundan <kannan at cakoose dot com> wrote:
> Hmm... I had skimmed the SCSU document a few days ago. At the time it
> seemed a bit more complicated than I wanted.
SCSU decoders are not complicated, and with encoders, you get to make
the decision between simplicity and high performance.
The reputation of SCSU for being complicated is greatly exaggerated in
an industry which develops and implements algorithms every day that are
orders of magnitude more complicated.
> What's nice about UTF-8 and UTF-16-like encodings is that the space
> usage is predictable.
If the space usage is predictable, you really don't get the compression
you're looking for.
> But maybe I'll take a closer look. If a simple SCSU encoder can do
> better than more "standard" encodings 99% of the time, then maybe it's
> worth it...
It's worth it. Feel free to ask more questions about SCSU.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2010 - 08:15:04 CDT