That's a reasonable but exactly backwards way of looking at it. Indeed, Unicode captures a wide range of what we consider text, but text is not Unicode. There a

That's a reasonable but exactly backwards way of looking at it. Indeed, Unicode captures a wide range of what we consider text, but text is not Unicode. There are languages with symbols that Unicode can't represent but they are still text -- to claim otherwise is to erase them. Something closer to a definition of text is parts of their criteria for encoding symbols [1] but even that is imperfect. [1] https://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html https://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html