> there are algorithms embedded in widely-deployed standards which are defined in terms of code points. From my original comment: > You only care about code p

> there are algorithms embedded in widely-deployed standards which are defined in terms of code points. From my original comment: > You only care about code points when dealing with UTF32 strings or when implementing operations on unicode text. These operations fall in the latter. It's still pretty niche. If an algorithm is defined explicitly in terms of code points this makes sense. Stuff starts falling apart when people assign meaning to code points and use it as a placeholder for other concepts like glyph or columns of grapheme cluster.