=?utf-8?B?UmU6IOCkpuClh+CkteCkqOCkvuCkl+CksOClgCDgpLXgpJfgpYfgpLDgpYbgpLkg4KSy4KS/4KSq4KS/4KSv4KWL4KSC4KSu4KWH4KSCIOCksuCkv+CkluCkqOClh+CkleClhyDgpJLgpLAg4KSV4KS/4KSk4KSo4KWHIOCkuOCkvuCkp+CkqCDgpIngpKrgpLLgpKzgpY3gpKcgPw==?=

Romanise wrote:
> > Romanise <jo****dm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >If programmers come to recognise that a given language can
effectively
> > >communicate with certain least number of letters and diacritic marks
> > >then they would be halfway to devising the optimal tool for given
> > >language.
>
> > > Herman Rubin wrote:
> > The least number is 1, or 2 if one considers spaces to be
> > characters.
>
> Please elaborate your point.
>
> Space would be one charater, besides letters and diacritic marks Indian
> scripts require.

I think he's pointing out that you can simply convert every glyph to
binary code.

> > Of course, what do you mean by "effectively"?
>
> Languages often carry a lot of historical baggage with them
> particularly when those with writing skills want to keep their club
> exclusive. Writers even create unnecessary letters and symbols in name
> of "accomodating" more than one language.