Kannan Goundan <kannan at cakoose dot com> wrote:
Hmm... I had skimmed the SCSU document a few days ago. At the time it seemed a bit more complicated than I wanted.
SCSU decoders are not complicated, and with encoders, you get to make the decision between simplicity and high performance.
The reputation of SCSU for being complicated is greatly exaggerated in an industry which develops and implements algorithms every day that are orders of magnitude more complicated.
What's nice about UTF-8 and UTF-16-like encodings is that the space usage is predictable.
If the space usage is predictable, you really don't get the compression you're looking for.
But maybe I'll take a closer look. If a simple SCSU encoder can do better than more "standard" encodings 99% of the time, then maybe it's worth it...
It's worth it. Feel free to ask more questions about SCSU. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
