RE: Further Corrected: A new form of character encoding

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Feb 07 2011 - 10:20:25 CST

  • Next message: Andreas St÷tzner: "Re: ■"

    <anbu at peoplestring dot com> wrote:

    > Now, the final codes you get after substitution are ready to be
    > assigned to characters. I tried this. They work better than any other
    > character encoding present. Combination of the final codes result in a
    > very good coding for characters.

    What is it that you are trying to accomplish? Are you trying to devise
    (or adapt) a variable-width compressed representation for Unicode scalar
    values? What are your criteria for "work better" and "very good"? Have
    you compared the output size on a variety of Unicode text samples, short
    and long, in various (and mixed) languages and scripts, to either
    state-of-the-art general-purpose compression methods or Unicode-specific
    compression encodings? Do you have any quantitative results?

    Please don't simply restate the algorithm.

    Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
    RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ┬ş

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 07 2011 - 10:24:05 CST