-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Soobok Lee wrote: > From: "Martin Duerst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >1) saturations in TLD namespaces would require longer names for which > > > REORDERING is designed to give greater benefits/compression ratio. > > > > No. What James referred to is that saturation tends to fill up the > > short name slots, and thus flatten the probability distribution. > > I.e. if somebody doesn't get the name they wanted, the chance is > > that they go for something like xq.com, because it's easy to > > remember because it's short. Neither x nor q are very frequent > > letters. > > Han/hangeul characters carries meanings while latin alphabets > denote phonemes.
?? Unless I'm very confused about Hangul, it is at least as much phonetically-based as Latin. Hangul Jamo are letters of an alphabet, which happen to be arranged in square cells corresponding to syllables, instead of linearly. Moreover, each Hangul syllable (encoded as a single character when NFC/NFKC-normalised), normally represents 3 Jamo. That should be taken into account when assessing whether Hangul is encoded compactly enough. > Therefore your analogy between latin and han domains > may be false. Chinese people would rather choose to register > digit-added variants of already taken desired domains in saturated > ML.com, instead of choosing non-sense irrelevant rare han characters. > > Later time, I will provide some proofs that SC and TC only have > small partial set of frequent characters. That's not in dispute. The argument is about whether the complexity of reordering is worth the additional compression. IMHO it isn't - AMC-Z (or UTF-8) encodings are sufficiently compact that the 63-octet and 255-octet limits are not a serious problem for any language or script, and the savings for average names are marginal. - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBO9DO2zkCAxeYt5gVAQF/7AgAzp3KB/kPA2XAxb43hCSbrLBOxavd4WSq DYfvw2UuwloLkEZB+tkkoOPucW/ElLmaYjuYMKt6nea2LZthLpTWDc8a8ENXqM34 Z+aP8nqN9XzeMTPisebpCcTE7PZYWdi87a0grmL0KFBzYG0PsxAB905Yvf12oU4U u3da6Ku37YJeYK0jNi4/qhoAUZ8gyz+gW4MWWxCmuAIrvmIkaf/d4lX4Tu+75mg2 VcS3ezCGbOt3Wf0GIfUl869BBRbPB7bScBX0EjP/C+sQpCVR6gVs6SKDS9zY/W6k XImrf7IuLg57za70dy5YiCgNBYOvlNa4Xgi3d+DFoW7jntmj4MEUYw== =4Lmr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
