Content deleted Content added
Prosfilaes (talk | contribs) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Tag: |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Computing}}
}}
== "1 byte per character" ==
Line 8 ⟶ 11:
::: ISO-8859-{1,5-9,11} map to contiguous Unicode code points. I think that's many text files.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::the upper half of ISO-8859-5 mostly maps to $400-$45F but there are a number of positions that don't, in partiticular positions A0,AD,F0 and FD [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== External links ==
It's not entirely clear to me what benefit the link to SIL adds -- it's not to a relevant page, and indeed I can't find anything on SIL's site directly relating to SCSU. Remove the link? --[[User:Jkew|Jkew]] 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
== Compression vs. Delta-Compression. ==
It is the compression that matters, that is the sum of Compression1+Compression2; not Compression2 alone, when using multiple compression algorithms. Comparing the compression gain of BOCU/SCSU and UTF-8/UTF-16 is unfair - because SCSU/BOCU stream is already compressed.<ref>Technical Note 14, Unicode: A surveyof Unicode compressionJanuary 30, 2004 Using bzip2, a compressor which employs the Burrows-Wheeler algorithm, evenabsurdlyinefficient formats—such as representing each character by its full Unicode name (e.g. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH CIRCUMFLEX)—could be reduced to almostthe same size as more compact formats. Atkin and Stansifer demonstrate that block-sorting compression techniqueseliminate most of the redundancy of the encoding format. The supporting data compares the compressibility of each encoding format with bzip2 and declares a “winner,” which is somewhat misleading since the paper attempts to show that all formats are about equally compressible. (In some cases,the “winner” was only 0.01% smaller than another format!) In contrast, the gzip compression tool, which uses LZ77, generally performed 15% to 25% better on natural-language, small-alphabet textencoded inSCSU or BOCU-1 than on the sametextencoded in UTF-16. The authors claim thatthese differences are notsignificant,but theycan hardly be considered negligible.</ref>. Please correct if wrong. Thanks.[[Special:Contributions/175.157.246.242|175.157.246.242]] ([[User talk:175.157.246.242|talk]]) 18:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
| |||