3 ms·
Or just not bother with unification? Have "Pawn" and "Emoji Pawn" it's not like we're starving for space. This and things like CJK unifications make me feel lik
by lotyrin 9y ago
Or just not bother with unification? Have "Pawn" and "Emoji Pawn" it's not like we're starving for space. This and things like CJK unifications make me feel like design happens on a level of naive convenience instead of giving a shit about what things mean or how they are used.
- ZenPsycho 9y agoit turns out that, to many people's surprise, trying to create a computer encoding for every human written language is extremely political, and weird compromises have to be made. I think initially the CJK unification was because unicode thought they'd only ever need 16 bits, and that's pretty much the only way to fit all those characters in that space. now it's up to 21 bits and I wonder if that will ultimately be enough. But effectively the presentation system (in theory, stuff still needs to implement it) does make "pawn" and "emoji pawn", by having "emoji pawn" be [pawn character] [emoji presentation character]