I had this idea about two years ago! https://github.com/keith-turner/ecoji … But after Base65536, Base32768, HexagramEncode, BrailleEncode and Base1 I had run out of steam
Show this thread
Ecoji has an efficiency of 31.25% - each byte of input becomes 3.2 bytes of output, regardless of whether the output is encoded as UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32. Compare Base64 (optimal for UTF-8, 75% efficient), Base32768 (UTF-16, 93.75%) or Base65536 (UTF-32, 50%)
-
-
With Ecoji you can fit up to 175 bytes of data in a (new-style, 280-character) Tweet. Compare Base2048, which allows up to 385 bytes
Show this thread -
Now that I think about it I think another reason I didn't make an emoji-based encoding back in 2015/2016 was that at the time there were not 1024 distinct emojis
Show this thread -
There are reportedly over 2048 emojis now so this could have been a marginally more efficient 11-bit encoding! Talk about your classic blunders
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t Base85 more efficient than Base64 for UTF-8?
-
In theory, but it uses a large number of symbols and punctuation characters which I consider to be unsafe
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.