John Aurelio Cowan wrote:) > Marco Cimarosti scripsit: > > Talking about the format of mapping tables, I always > > wondered why not using ranges. In the case of ISO > > 8859-11, the table would become as compact as > > three lines: > > Well, that wins for 8859-1 and 8859-11 and ISCII-88, where Unicode > copied existing layouts precisely. But it wouldn't help other 8859-x > much if at all,
All 8859 tables would be more succint. Non-Latin sections use contiguous ranges of letters in alphabetical order or, however, in the same order used by Unicode; this is also true for most other non-ISO charsets. Latin sections are a worse case, but they still benefit slightly, because characters shared with Latin-in stay the same positions. > and it requires binary search rather than direct > array access, which would be a terrible lossage in CJK, where the > real costs are. I agree. In the case of CJK it simply doesn't pay. _ Marco
