3 ms·
It's not triviality. How many people do you really think care about Elymaic script? Or about Nandinagari?
by 781 8y ago
It's not triviality.
How many people do you really think care about Elymaic script? Or about Nandinagari?
- vardump 8y agoWhy would you bring up something relatively obscure and ignore all the other major non-emoji changes? In addition to what grandparent listed: > UTS #10, Unicode Collation Algorithm—sorting Unicode text > UTS #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms—reducing Unicode spoofing > UTS #46, Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing—compatible processing of non-ASCII URLs I think plenty of people care about these changes.
- jameshart 8y agoPresumably some people. Assigning code points is the Unicode consortium’s job. That’s what unicode does. Nobody should be upset that they keep doing it. But you ignore the substance of the parent’s post which is about the new elements of the Unicode standard which are not confined to assigning code points. There is substance there to be analyzed - there is material there about how Unicode should be used in defining identifier syntaxes which is of high relevance to an HN audience (eg in defining your new serverless framework, what characters should you allow in function names? Unicode now has a better answer for you than ‘[a-zA-Z_0-9-]’). There are updates to Unicode security and idna support. But no, sure, let’s complain about emoji and obscure languages.
- coldtea 8y ago>Assigning code points is the Unicode consortium’s job. That’s what unicode does. Nobody should be upset that they keep doing it. Why not? Something being "somebody's job", and others being upset that that somebody keeps doing it, can be very logical. E.g. 1) if the job wastes resources, is deemed silly, is done badly, etc. 2) if the job is detrimental to those others