8 ms·
Compatibility and efficiency are two big reasons why you would want to have composed forms like e.g. the single codepoint for é: legacy encodings also have a si
by TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
Compatibility and efficiency are two big reasons why you would want to have composed forms like e.g. the single codepoint for é: legacy encodings also have a single codepoint for it, and it's more efficient to represent it with one codepoint than with two.
So, we need composed characters, but surely combining characters aren't needed, then? Well, no, because it's unreasonable to include a codepoint for every single combination, especially once you have multiple diacritics on a single character, for example. Also, compatibility factors in here too, because legacy encodings likewise have combining characters.
- Ono-Sendai 9y agoCombining characters seems like a pretty stupid thing to have in a character set/encoding. Does anyone know how many combined characters are actually needed?
- cryptonector 9y agoMore than there are pre-composed codepoint assignments for.
- cryptonector 9y agoAnd also: scripts evolve. People may well start combining various diacritical marks in ways not done before. Also, it can be useful to decompose in some cases. For example, it's useful for removing diacritical marks, which can be useful for fuzzy searches. Hangul is really phonetic, not syllabic, so there it's the reverse: decomposed forms are most useful, except when you need to think in syllables.