Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

And this is, of course, only for short strings. A 10K file of Cyrillic converted
to Punycode would blow out completely. (Of course, short strings were part of
the design constraints.)

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, 2003 Oct 29 13:23
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)


>
> Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [UTF-8] might be a more efficient encoding, but it is no more "native"
> > or "direct" or "raw" than ACE.
>
> I know this is beside the point, but...
>
> UTF-8 is more compact than Punycode only for strings with a lot of
> ASCII characters, which is typical of Latin-based scripts.  For small
> non-Latin scripts (like Cyrillic and Arabic), Punycode is significantly
> more compact than UTF-8 (and for some of them, including all the Indian
> scripts, the difference is quite great).  For large scripts (like Han
> and Hangul) Punycode and UTF-8 are comparable, and UTF-16 beats them
> both by a wide margin.
>
> AMC
>