4 ms·
It actually does do something along those lines, with the "canonical" and "compatible" equivalence rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence htt
by stevenbedrick 10y ago
It actually does do something along those lines, with the "canonical" and "compatible" equivalence rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence
As mentioned by others on this thread, the real issue is not with Unicode per se, but rather with the ways that web browsers handle it (or fail to handle it, as the case may be).
- spullara 10y agoThe web browser or DNS?
- zokier 10y agoI think it is very much an issue in Unicode that they did not define the NFKD of ɢ to be G. As far as I can tell, the rationale is that ɢ is semantically different because it is used in IPA. I find that pretty weak, considering the ubiquity of smallcaps. Asking browsers to diverge (as far as equivalence goes) from Unicode standards sounds a lot like a failure of Unicode.