The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)
Erik van der Poel
erikv at google.com
Tue Dec 1 23:44:55 CET 2009
I ran the program again today, and Eszett is being used a bit more now
than it was last year.
8,981 Eszett in host name in link 0.00001%
2,739 Eszett in host name in link 0.0000055%
1,973 Eszett in host name in document URL 0.00022%
All 3 of the samples were "high value" documents in our index. The
2006 sample looked for Eszett in the host name in the URL of the
document (rather than links inside the document). It is no longer
possible to find Eszett in the URLs of our documents because they are
now all mapped to "ss". So the 2006 sample cannot really be compared
with the others because the URL of a document always contains a host
name, while a link inside a document might be a relative URL (without
a host name).
The Final Sigma has not grown as much:
305 final sigma in host name in link
138 final sigma in host name in link
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
> It is approximately 60, as you computed. The trillion figure was in a public
> posting from July 2008, which is why we can quote it.
> 2009/12/1 Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
>> Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>>> As far as Harald's back-of-the-envelope calculations go, they present a
>>> very inaccurate picture of the scale. Here are some more exact figures for
>>> that data.
>>> 1. 819,600,672 = sample size of documents
>>> 2. 5,000 = links with eszed in the sample
>>> 3. 1,000,000,000,000 = total documents in index (2008)
>>> 4. 1,220 = scaling factor (= total docs / sample size)
>>> 5. 6,100,532 = estimated total links with eszed (= scaling *
>>> sample eszed links)
>>> Even this has to be taken with a certain grain of salt, since (a) it is
>>> assuming that the sample is representative (although we have reasonable
>>> confidence in that), and (b) it doesn't weight the "importance" of the links
>>> (in terms of the number of times they are followed), and (c) this data was
>>> collected back in Nov 2008, so we've had another year of growth since then.
>> I obviously need a bigger envelope :-) - I didn't think we had one
>> trillion documents in the 2008 index.
>> One missing number: how many links per document?
>> Obviously #eszed links / #documents can't be the basis of the 0.00001%
>> figure that Erik quoted, because 5000/819600672 = 0.00061005%, not 0.00001%,
>> which is a factor of 60 larger, but if we estimate 60 links per document,
>> the 0.00001% fits nicely as the percentage of links that contain eszed.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update