4 ms·
I exactly get your point. I don't know why either, but I'm assuming there's a reason.
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I exactly get your point. I don't know why either, but I'm assuming there's a reason.
- a1369209993 6y agoFair enough, but I'm assuming the reason, whatever it is, is at least as stupid as the reason why U+01F1 exists and is not encoded as 44 5A.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoWhy on earth would unicode U+01F1, with it's obvious hex encoding of 01F1, be encoded as hex value 44 5A (a Han character https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/445a/index.htm https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/445a/index.htm)?
- wnoise 6y agoHe meant U+44 U+5A. The ASCII letters D and Z.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoThen in that case because some apparent pairs of letters are in fact a single letter in some languages. Per the DZ wiki page someone else has given, DZ is a distinct single letter in hungarian and slovak at least. Double letters being a single letter isn't rare, such as ll and dd in welsh. In a strange sense it arguably occurs in english in th and th, which I could argue are double-letter representations of single letters, which were originally eth and thorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_%28letter%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_%28letter%29
- a1369209993 6y agoYes, exactly; "Dz" and "ll" (and "fi" at U+FB01) are single characters to exactly the same extent as "th" is, ie not.
- dhosek 6y agoIt's a backwards compatibility issue with an older character set where the symbol is used in latin transcription of Macedonian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dz_(digraph)#Unicode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dz_(digraph)#Unicode
- mark-r 6y agoThere are a lot of those in Unicode. Characters that are visually indistinguishable but exist to provide round-trip capability to some older character set.
- a1369209993 6y agoYes, and I'm assuming the reason BRAILLE PATTERN BLANK is not correctly classified is at least as stupid as that, and can therefore be safely ignored for the purposes of having legitimate reasons for things.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoFinally you've got to the point, that braille whitespace is not classified as a whitespace (which on checking is true). Why didn't you say that at the start.
- a1369209993 6y ago> that braille whitespace is not classified [correctly] I did! That was the first thing I said. > > characters that render as whitespace but aren't, for example U+2800 (BRAILLE PATTERN BLANK). > in actual braille, that is a whitespace character
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoIndeed you did. My apologies.