4 ms·
Well, we are slowly approaching the "truth" .-) Frankly I think most people don't care about the complexities of Unicode. Count me in. I treat it as a necessar
by jstimpfle 10y ago
Well, we are slowly approaching the "truth" .-)
Frankly I think most people don't care about the complexities of Unicode. Count me in. I treat it as a necessary evil. What I do with it is mostly concerned with the characters (code points if you insist) from the ASCII range that are in there (for example, splitting lines or words). I hope it's okay to ignore code points vs glyphs etc. in this case?
- jstimpfle 10y agoBtw. I'm fully aware that this is just the bytes vs unicode issue, taken to the next level. The difference however is that a) most data doesn't contain combining code points while much data is non-ASCII unicode, and b) software (i.e. most software, with the exception of perl 6 and probably few others) doesn't have convenient support for glyph-level strings yet -- I wouldn't mind if it had.