4 ms·
This is a great example of how limiting ASCII is. It doesn’t even contain the full set of punctuation that correct (!) English requires. It supposes that you ar
by pacaro 9y ago
This is a great example of how limiting ASCII is. It doesn’t even contain the full set of punctuation that correct (!) English requires. It supposes that you are satisfied using ' for both ‘ and ’, and " for both “ and ”, and eliminates all the dashes for the hyphen—which has to play double duty as a minus sign.
It also eliminate dieresis from the language, naive not naïve, and strips all accents from loan words
- dredmorbius 9y agoQuestion is: how much charactersetting is enough, and how much is too much? I've been kicking around thoughts on Unicode and various codepoints, and which really ought or ought not be used. It is decidedly complex. I've got in mind a simplified coding, though, for common interchange formats. Effectively a glyphic pidgen. Presuming "glyphic" is a word. (1913 Webster says it is. Hurrah!)
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> correct (!) English Ah, a prescriptivist!