Content deleted Content added
m restore "Table Unicode" |
m linkify |
||
Line 5:
SCSU is not a resounding success. Few places need to compress enough Unicode text to make it worth using a poorly supported compression scheme. Treated purely as a compression format, it's inferior to most commonly used compression programs for texts over a few kilobytes. It can be used as a text encoding, but it's very hard to handle internally, and the percentage savings between SCSU and [UTF-16] or [UTF-8] drops after external compression, dramatically in the case of [bzip2] and other modern compression schemes. It does have the advantage that SCSU can compress texts that are only a few characters long, whereas most full-scale compressors need a few kilobytes of data to overcome the overhead.
[[Reuters]], the organization that floated the first draft of SCSU, is believed to use SCSU internally.
''See also:'' [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr6/ UTS #6: Compression Scheme for Unicode]
| |||