2 ms·
Yes, but this is a change either way, because that codepoint's definition referred to that character. Either the reference or the description of the appearance
by Arnt 4y ago
Yes, but this is a change either way, because that codepoint's definition referred to that character. Either the reference or the description of the appearance has to change.
- echelon 4y agoꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ Make a new character. Updating the existing character ruins the meaning of all previous usages. It's like trying to change an API. Don't disrespect your existing users. Make a new version. (ꙮ ͜ʖꙮ) Think of all the ASCII art this botches. That has to have some historical importance to the Unicode standards body. (⌐ꙮ_ꙮ) For scholarly digital (unprinted) documents where the correct character rendering matters, erroneous past usages can be trivially found with grep, a date search, and easily corrected. The domain experts will familiarize themselves with this issue and fix the problem. Don't take a shotgun to it! This message wꙮn't have the ꙮriginally intended meaning if the characters are updated from underneath. ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ ꙮ