201–210 of 429 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless it's a symbol one uses in a sentence "To start the device, press the ⏻ button on the device face" There, used in a sentence.
I'm not sure. It sounds like we would then have to include every possible image.
"Every possible image" (e.g. an elephant icon in running text) is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
having every possible glyph in UTF8 seems like a horrible waste A horrible waste of what? Unicode 9.0 encodes 128,172 characters, of a possible total 1,112,064 code points. The addressable space is 11.52% full. Clearly there's enough left to keep adding more and more characters for a really long time. If your complaint is that it's a waste of resources, time, etc - surely it's up to the people who are members of the…
> Clearly there's enough left to keep adding more and more characters for a really long time. And then what? It's already 11% full.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> useless symbols? Just because they are useless to you doesn't mean they are useless to everyone.
True but I think that is also problematic. The more symbols there are the less likely it is that every font covers all the symbols that someone might find important. For instance, I often get e-mails with characters that can't be displayed because my standard fonts (on linux) don't have them. The "missing unicode symbol" icon is the new "picture not found" icon[0] In fact, it is even worse as there is no alt attribut…
Hope pause/play/rewind etc come next: http://fontawesome.io/icons/#video-player
As the story mentions regarding the off symbol (a circle), there are many visually identical code points that have different semantic meanings. But in this case, they added an additional semantic meaning to an existing code point. So which is it? Does each code point represent a visual image? A semantic meaning? Both? It depends? Something else? I've tried to decipher that on my own and only learned that the answer t…
The emoji code points can be represented differently on different systems given their meaning.
So it makes sense to have different emojis for different 'meanings'.
The 'moon' switch here does no mean 'moon' - it means 'standby' or whatever.
It may look noticeably different on different systems.
Think from a design perspective: you have 5 emojis to represent 'clouds, sky, earth' etc. - and the a different set of 5 to represent 'on, off, sleep, shutdown'. Those icons will be markedly different in terms of representation, groupings, colour coding, underlying functionality if they are integrated into an experience in any meaningful way.
Text your car with the 'shutdown' symbol to tell it to shut down.
Your bot texts your friend with a moon symbol to tell him you're asleep. Or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? Couldn't Unicode have pointers or links, where a codepoint "exists" with no content and only links to another? (I don't know anything about Unicode, so maybe it already has that.)
Semantically, yes. In the code tables you'll see that that "opposite" symbols have links to each other. Programatically, it is much easier to say "does a character lie between 0x12 and 0xBC" than to create a function like `isSymbolForTrafficInEurope()`
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basic Multilingual Plane?
Emoji are not in the BMP. Whether they are essential or not I'll leave it to you :)
But some characters not in the BMP I would consider very essential, like the various Asian characters that didn't fit into the BMP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a font for that, but the character is unreadably small while it's perfectly fine for latin characters. Many other unicode symbols also suffer from this problem. E.g. ␀ is the printable version of the unprintable NUL (\0) control character, but it's so small at 13.3px / 10pt CSS font size that it's difficult to distinguish from the other control pictures. ␀ ␁ ␂ ␃ ␄ ␅ ␆ ␇ ␈ ␉ ␊ ␋ ␌ ␍ ␎ ␏ ␐ ␑ ␒ ␓ ␔ ␕ ␖ ␗ ␘ ␙ ␚ ␛…
Imagine if ﷽ was sized to a monospace font.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> useless symbols? Just because they are useless to you doesn't mean they are useless to everyone.
True but I think that is also problematic. The more symbols there are the less likely it is that every font covers all the symbols that someone might find important. For instance, I often get e-mails with characters that can't be displayed because my standard fonts (on linux) don't have them. The "missing unicode symbol" icon is the new "picture not found" icon[0] In fact, it is even worse as there is no alt attribut…
That is a meaningless requirement. The symbols I use on a daily basis already don't exist in a single font. Operating systems handle font fallback just fine.
