From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2011 - 10:20:25 CST
<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 | http://www.ewellic.org 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