Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xml-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - RE: [xml-dev] [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ? >Thread Next - RE: [xml-dev] But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideograms But is it fair? - An exploration of alphabets and ideogramsTo: <xml-dev@-----.---.---> Date: 3/4/2005 1:35:00 PM But then is it "fair" that English requires a whopping 19 bytes to transmit "microencephalopathy," or even 13 bytes for the Germanic "pinheadedness," when there's probably an efficient ideogram or two (requiring only 6 to 8 bytes total) for the same concept in Chinese? William J. Kammerer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...> To: "'William J. Kammerer'" <wkammerer@n...>; <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Friday, 04 March, 2005 07:54 AM Subject: RE: [xml-dev] [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from the UCS ? > I can't comment on the usability of any alphabet other than Latin, but > is it "fair" that Chinese ideograms chew up tens of thousands of code > points in Unicode? It's balanced by the unfairness that Latin letters only occupy one byte in UTF-8, whereas Chinese ideograms occupy three or four. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
