3 ms·
Yes, I don't understand why non 'text' characters such as flags and emoji were allowed in Unicode. They appear to me to be a fundamentally different concept. T
by rkangel 5y ago
Yes, I don't understand why non 'text' characters such as flags and emoji were allowed in Unicode. They appear to me to be a fundamentally different concept.
That said, I have always assumed that these problems we get with emoji also have equivalents that show up in other languages, it's just that we speak English and so only see them with Emoji. Maybe it's good that Emoji were included because it actually stresses our Unicode implementations!
And this is all before you introduce text that is written right-to-left like arabic scripts.
- usrbinbash 5y ago> Yes, I don't understand why non 'text' characters such as flags and emoji were allowed in Unicode. Just my 2 cents, but if ASCII includes, among other things, "characters" for linefeed, 4 unspecified "device control characters", EOT (End of Transmission), and a character to ring a bell, then I guess its okay to put some smileys and flags into Unicode.
- numpad0 5y agoI believe it was solely about disrupting Japanese flip phone web which was an appendix to the web that was starting to swell up really badly.
- sharikous 5y agoRTL is a nightmare for those of us who work with it. The problem is not to work with RTL. I enjoy that. The problem is the massive quantity of LTR stuff that is in RTL languages still (English words, programming language keywords, math, music, certain conventions, ...) Anyway yes multi-character glyphs occur in various forms (like accents, sometimes: é, ñ...) but I always thought that the burden of supporting them was on the fonts, not on the Terminal or the Unicode standard itself.