-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: lowercase XML languages Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 06:22:24 -0800 From: "Robert Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Koberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's a good one... The person who told you that was either pulling your leg, or just trying to make up an explanation. In fact, just the opposite would be true, if anything. Since the upper case letters appear first in ASCII order, you "could" save a little bit of space by trimming off the 7th bit, but unfortunately, not cleanly. Trying to do anything to further compress 7bit ASCII down would essentially result in a "new" character table, which would not be a good thing. -Robert -----Original Message----- From: Robert Koberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:54 AM To: Steven Pemberton Cc: Christian Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lowercase XML languages hi, I just heard a good explantion. The person said the decision was made to go with lowercase because it compresses more. He said that the savings was about 20% over uppercase. Was this the reason? best, -Rob Steven Pemberton wrote: >>>>I dream that there were major battles in the XHTML group as they >>>>hashed out whether to use lower or upper case tags. Lives were lost, >>>>villages destroyed, reputations ruined, etc. Ok, it probably wasn't >>>>that bad and I wasn't there so I wouldn't know. >>>> >> >> >>Actually, I was aÖ_nexpecting a major battle when this issue came up >>in the group. In fact we were able to make the decision without even >>raising our voices. >> >>Steven Pemberton >>Chair, W3C HTML Working Group > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
