4 ms·

I think this is basically what's happening on the JCK plane with glyphs that have the same code, but slightly different representations depending on the font (e

I think this is basically what's happening on the JCK plane with glyphs that have the same code, but slightly different representations depending on the font (e.g. Chinese or Japanese), with potentially wildly different meanings in the language they are used. To your point, this is an aspect where integrating and regularily adding emojis to unicode pushed a very technical system under popular attention, and attracted a lot of people from unrelated backgrounds who now have to understand how it works and what its goals in the first place.

lmm 5y ago
> I think this is basically what's happening on the JCK plane with glyphs that have the same code, but slightly different representations depending on the font (e.g. Chinese or Japanese), with potentially wildly different meanings in the language they are used. It was even more dumb when they did it for CJK. Unicode is now neither fish nor fowl; you can't rely on things to look the same in different places, but you can't rely on them to mean the same either; there's no proper separation of concerns because they decided it's fine for the meaning of a character to change based on the font you're using.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Yes, it's not an ideal solution on many respects. I kind of get why we got here, as encodings were a quagmire for a long time, and coming to a real clean, everybody's happy solution with unicode looked completely unrealistic. We now have way better compatibility, got to settle for one encoding in most cases, and the annoyances are for now somewhat manageable (if/when China opens more to the global net, it might be a different story). Installing fonts is still easier than adding encoding compatibilities.