81–90 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly it probably deserves the Pluto treatment: decertification as a character. One historical use in the 1400s doesn't merit a character and never did.
One historical use in the 1400s doesn't merit a character and never did One known and surviving use. It is possible that it exists in other places, since the vast majority of the planet's written work has not been digitized. It may also have been used other places that have not survived. Just because it's not important to you does not mean it is not important. The fact that is survived for 600 years makes it interest…
(┛ꙮДꙮ)┛彡┻━┻
ꙮ>
===
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Santa Clause” would translate to “holy clause”. There might be such a thing but I think you meant Santa Claus :)
I thought "santa" meant "saint"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today, I wrote a document by hand containing a new symbol that only looks like genitalia if you squint really hard. Where do I apply to have it included in unicode so that it can be digitized properly?
Can you reuse 𓂸 or 𓂺?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unicode doesn't have a character for every illuminated initial, nor should it. I'm not clear on why this character should be considered any differently.
Because it's already been added to unicode. Now it's not a question of whether or not to add, rather to remove, and unicode almost by definition does not remove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today, I wrote a document by hand containing a new symbol that only looks like genitalia if you squint really hard. Where do I apply to have it included in unicode so that it can be digitized properly?
Can you reuse 𓂸 or 𓂺?
〜 ( ꒪ ꒳ ꒪ ) 〜
( ༎ຶ ෴ ༎ຶ )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly it probably deserves the Pluto treatment: decertification as a character. One historical use in the 1400s doesn't merit a character and never did.
Unicode's mission is to make every document "roundtrip-able". Even if a character is only used once, it should be possible to save a plaintext version of the containing document without losing any information. Roughly, I should be able to put a transcription of that one translation from the 1400s on Wikisource without using images. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but it doesn't change Unicode's mission. Be…
I see that near it, there is an ef (Ф) with a very tall stem.
Why should that not be included as a standard unicode character? Surely it is used more often than the multiocular o.
You may say "it's a decorative flourish", which is of course true, but so is the multiocular o. Should we allow every conceivable decorative flourish into unicode? What is the standard for where flourishes become distinct characters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly it probably deserves the Pluto treatment: decertification as a character. One historical use in the 1400s doesn't merit a character and never did.
idk. when the word Planet was redefined such that Pluto was no longer a planet, it kind of ruined the word Planet. It suddenly wasn’t nearly as useful as a word as it used to (even though now it has a precise meaning). For most people that use the word, it won’t matter (and is actually rather exciting) that they keep discovering new planets in our solar system. If they’d treat the word characters the same way, it wou…
When my kids were young, I accidentally flubbed the pronunciation of "Santa Claus" once and said something that sounded a lot like "Centiclops", which I decided to roll with. Centiclops is a lot like a cyclops with one eye, except the as a reading of the roots clearly indicates, this is a creature with 100 eyes. Today I learn that Centiclops effectively has a Unicode character. As Centiclops' representative in the wo…
Or perhaps this character is an accurate representation of a Dekaclops.