3 ms·

One solution to allow combination characters, but only in a normalised way is to only allow one of the same modifiers, and only allow modifiers in the normal or

by sshine 4y ago

One solution to allow combination characters, but only in a normalised way is to only allow one of the same modifiers, and only allow modifiers in the normal order. This makes parsing Unicode quite complex. If you allow for non-normalised Unicode and write a post-processor that normalises, you get to status quo. So either you are suggesting to disallow non-normalised Unicode with the current definition, or something different altogether. I can't imagine what that alternative looks like. (Also, I'm a Unicode fanboy. Sorry for the intensity.)

still_grokking 4y ago
I think normalization and compound glyphs are orthogonal concepts. The point would be to have only one canonical binary representation. A representation that is also free of all kinds of "compromises" which are only there for legacy reasons… Additionally the whole madness should be resolved that Unicode mixes content, representation, and layout (especially as it fails miserably at all of them). Than there are the problems that Unicode is actually incapable of representing all kinds of scripts. (Just think for example about stuff written top-to-bottom, and not LTR / RTL). Some "unimportant" things like Math can't be represented in Unicode also… And I won't even talk about the issue that the committee was taken over by some political movement, namely the woke fraction. I think it's actually a kind of joke that we still didn't mange to invent some sane text format for computers. Unicode doesn't cut it. But frankly I admit that we won't get anywhere — as even Unicode is full of madness it works "good enough" by now through even more layers of madness on top, so we won't get rid of it ever again. That ship sailed I fear. Still I can't stop banging my head when I hear about things like issues with normalization, something that shouldn't exist in the first place in a sane world.

by sshine 4y ago

still_grokking 4y ago

I think normalization and compound glyphs are orthogonal concepts. The point would be to have only one canonical binary representation. A representation that is also free of all kinds of "compromises" which are only there for legacy reasons… Additionally the whole madness should be resolved that Unicode mixes content, representation, and layout (especially as it fails miserably at all of them). Than there are the problems that Unicode is actually incapable of representing all kinds of scripts. (Just think for example about stuff written top-to-bottom, and not LTR / RTL). Some "unimportant" things like Math can't be represented in Unicode also… And I won't even talk about the issue that the committee was taken over by some political movement, namely the woke fraction. I think it's actually a kind of joke that we still didn't mange to invent some sane text format for computers. Unicode doesn't cut it. But frankly I admit that we won't get anywhere — as even Unicode is full of madness it works "good enough" by now through even more layers of madness on top, so we won't get rid of it ever again. That ship sailed I fear. Still I can't stop banging my head when I hear about things like issues with normalization, something that shouldn't exist in the first place in a sane world.