3 ms·
> In that universe, you'd just be complaining that Unicode was Russo-centric. Yes, obviously. > It does not let you put more than 256 characters into a single
by Dewie 13y ago
> In that universe, you'd just be complaining that Unicode was Russo-centric.
Yes, obviously.
> It does not let you put more than 256 characters into a single byte in a character encoding.
Which I have never claimed. (EDIT: I think we're talking past each other: my point was that things like Huffman encoding encodes the most frequent data with the lowest amount of bits. I don't know how UTF-8 is implemented, but it seems conceptually similar. There is a reason that I didn't want to get anywhere near the nitty-gritty of this.)
> Okay. Complain about instances where it actually exists, and in discussions where it is actually relevant.
Oh yes, I will complain.
- Crito 13y agoA character coding has an equal distribution of each code point. Each code point is represented once. "For a set of symbols with a uniform probability distribution and a number of members which is a power of two, Huffman coding is equivalent to simple binary block encoding, e.g., ASCII coding." Huffman encoding something written in Japanese is useful. It is not useful for creating a Japanese character set. Get it? If you don't buy it, then try it on pen and paper. Imagine a hypothetical 10-character alphabet, and try to devise an encoding that will let you fit it into a two-bit word, without going multi-word. Use prefix codes or whatever you want. It's not going to happen. You also aren't going to get 10k characters into an 8-bit/word single-word character set.