Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Announcing Unicode 7.0

unicode-inc.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#81

Post by scrollaway »

buster wrote: post #76
sho_hn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, the example was a Chinese character, which qualifies as "normal" according to the rulebook you set up. It's in active use in Mandarin and Japanese, and I'd think recognizable to many others (e.g. Cantonese readers or Koreans and Vietnamese). And it'll certainly show just fine on the default installs of most systems on the market right now. http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=7C..…

The point is that it will never happen that all codepoints are available everywhere (every font, evers OS, every device), and i certainly don't want a gazillion of pictures loaded on my smartphones little memory, just because some people think it necessary to have a symbol for poop in fonts which is never used anyway. I even consider it a total waste in my laptops 16GB of memory, to be honest. It's not a waste when i…

If you think using pngs instead of fonts is going to save your oh-so-precious mobile device's memory, you got another thing coming.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#82

Post by scrollaway »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #30
buster wrote: post #12

Do we really need small pictures in fonts?

Hopefully it will stop the nonsense of having custom fonts in websites for icons. Which can be copied and turn out to be a "t" or something.

It won't. Those custom fonts you speak about not only use characters which aren't, and never would be in the unicode database (such as trademarked logos), but also draw from the private unicode blocks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas

Which means there's no sanely written font that would use a "t" for an icon. Wingdings is not a sanely written font.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#83

Post by scrollaway »

rejschaap wrote: post #38
sho_hn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are emoji different from other logograms?

There is a good case for adding ancient languages to Unicode. I can also see the case for adding smiley faces, which could be seen as a contemporary global language. But I fail to see the case for pictures of poop, pizza and cowbell. That just seems a bit random to me. Maybe everyone is drawing the line somewhere else, but I'm guessing most people don't want to go down the road of adding company logo's for Coca-Cola…

> Also, adding political glyphs is a sure way to ruin the universality of Unicode (I'm looking at you no-piracy).

As someone else pointed out, it comes from Wingdings, for which there has been an effort to fully get into Unicode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webdings#mediaviewer/File:Webd...

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#84

Post by dubya »

jaweegian wrote: post #75
greggman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the thermometer symbol used widely? No idea. Is emoji used widely? Yes, In Japan 🇯🇵 (and Korea? 🇰🇷) and has been for > 15 years. A common email/msg composed by a Japanese woman 👧 age 15 to 35 uses many emoji. I realize this message will not render correctly in Chrome because Chrome, at least Desktop Chrome, does not yet support emoji 😭

Is the problem with Chrome or the OS and font selection? I think everything renders on my Win 7 + FX 30 setup I'm using now. Generally, I have the best success with Win 8 + IE 11.

On OS X, Chrome renders boxes, Safari renders the proper characters.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#86

Post by buster »

scrollaway wrote: post #81
buster wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it will never happen that all codepoints are available everywhere (every font, evers OS, every device), and i certainly don't want a gazillion of pictures loaded on my smartphones little memory, just because some people think it necessary to have a symbol for poop in fonts which is never used anyway. I even consider it a total waste in my laptops 16GB of memory, to be honest. It's not a waste when i…

If you think using pngs instead of fonts is going to save your oh-so-precious mobile device's memory, you got another thing coming.

Which only shows that you know nothing. A unicode font can come in at about 20MB, but let's add more tiny pictures and make it 100MB, so that i can see the snowman on your webpage (which would be probably 2-5 kB as png).

Why should my browser load thousands of pictures that are never used?!

Yes, it's ridiculous.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#87

Post by scrollaway »

buster wrote: post #86
scrollaway wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think using pngs instead of fonts is going to save your oh-so-precious mobile device's memory, you got another thing coming.

Which only shows that you know nothing. A unicode font can come in at about 20MB, but let's add more tiny pictures and make it 100MB, so that i can see the snowman on your webpage (which would be probably 2-5 kB as png). Why should my browser load thousands of pictures that are never used?! Yes, it's ridiculous.

> A unicode font can come in at about 20MB, but let's add more tiny pictures and make it 100MB

You're pulling numbers out of your ass. You also clearly don't know how font fallbacks work, despite having been told how they work in this very thread. Several times.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#88

Post by buster »

scrollaway wrote: post #87
buster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which only shows that you know nothing. A unicode font can come in at about 20MB, but let's add more tiny pictures and make it 100MB, so that i can see the snowman on your webpage (which would be probably 2-5 kB as png). Why should my browser load thousands of pictures that are never used?! Yes, it's ridiculous.

> A unicode font can come in at about 20MB, but let's add more tiny pictures and make it 100MB You're pulling numbers out of your ass. You also clearly don't know how font fallbacks work, despite having been told how they work in this very thread. Several times.

No, Arial Unicode MS: 22,1 MB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_font

And you clearly don't understand that a) this thread contains unicode that my browser still doesn't show, despite your magic fallback and b) the fonts stil contain garbage that has nothing to do with fonts.

Post reply on HN