141–150 of 254 posts
And then people wander why software developers don't care to support Unicode properly. First 60,000+ characters made sense, than few more were needed and Unicode suddenly got to play with a 1,000,000+ and just went off the rails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could go either way, it is not always that the scientific meaning wins out, especially not when even scientists don’t find the new definition useful. When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology that isn’t a moon (I know excluding moons is arbitrary, and perhaps I shouldn’t do that; but hey, that’s language for you). I honestly don’t care about the orbit, and I bet that when most people thi…
> When I think of a planet, I think of a world that has active geology Wouldn't that definition rule out gas giants?
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m not an expert by any means. But something just doesn’t feel right when you’ve got unicode with a character with one known use from forever ago. Doesn’t this open up the flood gates to just a ridiculous amount of work or else biased gatekeeping? How much work would it be to implement your own font of the entire unicode set? Or is that not actually a thing and fonts implement as-…
You can't, and you are not expected to do so. You are limited by OpenType limit (65,535 glyphs), various shaping rules that possibly increase the number of required glyphs, and lack of local or historical typographic convention. Your best bet is either to recruit a large number of experts (e.g. Google Noto fonts) or to significantly sacrifice quality (e.g. GNU Unifont).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
For as inclusive as that mission is, it seems weird to me how limited in certain areas unicode is. For instance, people use peach emoji since there isn't one for butt, eggplant since there's no penis, etc. This doesn't contradict the stated goal exactly, but it seems against the spirit of it at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
For as inclusive as that mission is, it seems weird to me how limited in certain areas unicode is. For instance, people use peach emoji since there isn't one for butt, eggplant since there's no penis, etc. This doesn't contradict the stated goal exactly, but it seems against the spirit of it at least.
How this stuff make it to Unicode?!
This is similar to "man in business suit levitating" emoji. How this stuff make it to Unicode?!
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m not an expert by any means. But something just doesn’t feel right when you’ve got unicode with a character with one known use from forever ago. Doesn’t this open up the flood gates to just a ridiculous amount of work or else biased gatekeeping? How much work would it be to implement your own font of the entire unicode set? Or is that not actually a thing and fonts implement as-…
Actually this character seems like a scribe's joke, no different from the illustrated characters at the beginning of medieval paragraphs (all of which are represented in Unicode as A, B or whatever). But the point still holds.
It even holds for modern languages -- consider the ghost characters needed for round trip compatibility: https://weekly-geekly.imtqy.com/articles/418717/index.html
(actually cuneiform is a poor example; perhaps Linear A would have been a better example)
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m not an expert by any means. But something just doesn’t feel right when you’ve got unicode with a character with one known use from forever ago. Doesn’t this open up the flood gates to just a ridiculous amount of work or else biased gatekeeping? How much work would it be to implement your own font of the entire unicode set? Or is that not actually a thing and fonts implement as-…
> How much work would it be to implement your own font of the entire unicode set? Or is that not actually a thing and fonts implement as-desired subsets? You can't, and you are not expected to do so. You are limited by OpenType limit (65,535 glyphs), various shaping rules that possibly increase the number of required glyphs, and lack of local or historical typographic convention. Your best bet is either to recruit a…