3 ms·
By this measure pretty much every common programming language is unimplementable and should be never advocated. People have implemented Unicode for decades. Onl
by lifthrasiir 3y ago
By this measure pretty much every common programming language is unimplementable and should be never advocated. People have implemented Unicode for decades. Only a few implemented "full" support (in some sense), but that's same for pretty much everything complex enough. Can you actually measure one meter [1] according to the International System of Units?
[1] Or one foot. I remind you that all current standardized definition of "foot" is based on the SI.
- WalterBright 3y ago> People have implemented Unicode for decades Small subsets. No fonts remotely support all the characters. Prog languages do subsets.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoAs others pointed out, no single font is required to support all available Unicode characters. In fact it is just close to impossible anyway, because it is extremely hard to harmoize all typographic conventions across all scripts. Unicode mostly does the next best thing: it gives a uniform framework to handle multilingual texts without knowing specifics. Even though your font can't render "월터 브라이트" programs can normalize, compare, search and segment it just like it does with the text "Walter Bright". But if you like a pedantry, Noto fonts are close to be complete. They have to be used as a collection due to the OpenType limitation, but otherwise designed in unison. Most remaining characters are rarer CJK unified ideographs [1] but it is more about the priority issue; there are several fonts that cover the entire CJK unified ideographs as well. [1] https://notofonts.github.io/overview/ https://notofonts.github.io/overview/