From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2008 - 06:04:57 CST
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.
I guess that referred in particular to Tamil.
Just out of curiosity: has anyone made any actual storage
requirements measurements on actual typical texts encoded
according to Unicode (UTF-8/UTF-16) versus according to
their proposal? Both pure "plain text" (Tamil only) and,
say, moderately embedded in HTML markup.
If so, what were the results?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 07 2008 - 06:08:08 CST