3 ms·

BMP is mostly filled with symbols from logographic languages, and currently has around 100 free code points. 16 bits simply isn't enough for the scope of captur

BMP is mostly filled with symbols from logographic languages, and currently has around 100 free code points. 16 bits simply isn't enough for the scope of capturing all written language of the history.

pron 10y ago
But I don't think all written languages in history should have the same treatment when it comes to standardized data representation, or should all be standardized by the same body. It's OK to have alphabets no one has used for thousands of years other than specialized researchers standardized separately from Latin or Chinese alphabets.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  But if you don't what would the point of a unified standard be? What should happen to glyphs that noone have used outside of research for 100 years? 1000 years?
  - pron 10y ago
    They should all be standardized under separate standards. You can call them "extended text", if you like. Mathematical notation isn't really supported by Unicode, either (just mathematical symbols), and that's fine. Math should have its own standard, and so should hieroglyphs, emojis, and musical notation.
    - Tyr42 10y ago
      What happens if you want to use two different extended text code points in one blog post? How would they interact? How do they avoid assigning the same codepoint to different symbols. How would browsers support this? What's the actual plan, not just a handwave? Do you think it'd be more efficient to have to support 6 different standards than one?
      - pron 10y ago
        > What happens if you want to use two different extended text code points in one blog post? There are no codepoints if it's not text. How do you use codepoints for embedding a video or a picture on your blog? You don't! But, if you want to treat something as if it were text, then I suggested doing something similar to an XML namespace: "the next segment is hieroglyphics, you can get their glyphs from here, and these are their indices...". That "extended text" is still not text, and it still doesn't use any Unicode codepoints, but it can work according to similar principles. > Do you think it'd be more efficient to have to support 6 different standards than one? Then why don't we let the Unicode Consortium take over standardizing video or audio? If something isn't text, why is it standardized by a text standardization body?

pron 10y ago

But I don't think all written languages in history should have the same treatment when it comes to standardized data representation, or should all be standardized by the same body. It's OK to have alphabets no one has used for thousands of years other than specialized researchers standardized separately from Latin or Chinese alphabets.

hvidgaard 10y ago
But if you don't what would the point of a unified standard be? What should happen to glyphs that noone have used outside of research for 100 years? 1000 years?
- pron 10y ago
  They should all be standardized under separate standards. You can call them "extended text", if you like. Mathematical notation isn't really supported by Unicode, either (just mathematical symbols), and that's fine. Math should have its own standard, and so should hieroglyphs, emojis, and musical notation.
  - Tyr42 10y ago
    What happens if you want to use two different extended text code points in one blog post? How would they interact? How do they avoid assigning the same codepoint to different symbols. How would browsers support this? What's the actual plan, not just a handwave? Do you think it'd be more efficient to have to support 6 different standards than one?
    - pron 10y ago
      > What happens if you want to use two different extended text code points in one blog post? There are no codepoints if it's not text. How do you use codepoints for embedding a video or a picture on your blog? You don't! But, if you want to treat something as if it were text, then I suggested doing something similar to an XML namespace: "the next segment is hieroglyphics, you can get their glyphs from here, and these are their indices...". That "extended text" is still not text, and it still doesn't use any Unicode codepoints, but it can work according to similar principles. > Do you think it'd be more efficient to have to support 6 different standards than one? Then why don't we let the Unicode Consortium take over standardizing video or audio? If something isn't text, why is it standardized by a text standardization body?