Re: Let's shrink Packages.xz
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Nathan Schulte wrote:
> "ASCII hex" encodes 4 bits as 8 (or 7. but really 8.), as each ASCII
> character is a nibble of the digest; that's a 100% increase (factor
> of 2) over the bare digest (or a "raw mapping" of 8 bits of digest
> to an 8 bit character set).
The figures given refer to changes to the size of the compressed text, not
to the plaintext.
> I've never heard of base93, but I found a reference that I think
> describes what you mean . This should provide even better
> efficiency over base64, as should any binary-to-ascii mapping of
> higher radix. Perfect segue...
It can have lower spece efficiency in compressed text (in fact, that's
exactly what happened), even if it *is* more efficient in the plain text.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot