4 ms·

> Characters can consist of multiple code points. I enjoy being "that guy", and so, to be unfathomably pedantic, I will point out that the Unicode standard act

by 3PS 3y ago

> Characters can consist of multiple code points. I enjoy being "that guy", and so, to be unfathomably pedantic, I will point out that the Unicode standard actually uses the word "character" to refer to _encoded characters_, i.e. the mapping from a code point to an abstract character [0]. So 1 code point = 1 character for Unicode. Of course, in real life, character is a silly made-up word that means whatever you think it means and using it to refer to an extended grapheme cluster or glyph is probably closer to how people really think of them anyway. [0]: See section 3.4 of https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/UnicodeStandard-15.0.pdf https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/UnicodeStanda...

torstenvl 3y ago
Your position is obviously wrong both with regard to the Unicode standard and with regard to the meaning of the word "character." Unicode does not define "character" because that term is far too imprecise for a deterministic standard. And the Unicode standard is extremely clear that an abstract character may be represented by multiple code points. "A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points—for example, latin capital letter g with acute may be represented by the sequence <U+0047 latin capital letter g, U+0301 combining acute accent>, rather than being mapped to a single code point." > Of course, in real life, character is a silly made-up word that means whatever you think it means and using it to refer to an extended grapheme cluster or glyph is probably closer to how people really think of them anyway. Human language and writing are the defining inventions of the known universe. Unicode just happens to be one way of representing them. Referring to them as "silly and made up" in comparison to Unicode is nothing short of extreme mental illness.
- 3PS 3y ago
  Unicode Standard section 3.4: > Unless specified otherwise for clarity, in the text of the Unicode Standard the term character alone designates an encoded character. Reading is free. I even gave you the section number. > A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points An "abstract character" is not the same thing as a character. The whole point of my comment was that the general word "character" is a general class of definitions but means nothing by itself. Much like the word "number" - you will notice that mathematicians define many kinds of numbers, but never the word itself. > Human language and writing are the defining inventions of the known universe. Unicode just happens to be one way of representing them. Referring to them as "silly and made up" in comparison to Unicode is nothing short of extreme mental illness. All words are made up. I'm sorry you had to find out this way.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    > All words are made up. I'm sorry you had to find out this way. It's so, so interesting that you believe this to be true. Do you believe all things made by humans are made up? Is HN "made up"? Are other people "made up"?

by 3PS 3y ago

torstenvl 3y ago

Your position is obviously wrong both with regard to the Unicode standard and with regard to the meaning of the word "character." Unicode does not define "character" because that term is far too imprecise for a deterministic standard. And the Unicode standard is extremely clear that an abstract character may be represented by multiple code points. "A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points—for example, latin capital letter g with acute may be represented by the sequence <U+0047 latin capital letter g, U+0301 combining acute accent>, rather than being mapped to a single code point." > Of course, in real life, character is a silly made-up word that means whatever you think it means and using it to refer to an extended grapheme cluster or glyph is probably closer to how people really think of them anyway. Human language and writing are the defining inventions of the known universe. Unicode just happens to be one way of representing them. Referring to them as "silly and made up" in comparison to Unicode is nothing short of extreme mental illness.

3PS 3y ago
Unicode Standard section 3.4: > Unless specified otherwise for clarity, in the text of the Unicode Standard the term character alone designates an encoded character. Reading is free. I even gave you the section number. > A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points An "abstract character" is not the same thing as a character. The whole point of my comment was that the general word "character" is a general class of definitions but means nothing by itself. Much like the word "number" - you will notice that mathematicians define many kinds of numbers, but never the word itself. > Human language and writing are the defining inventions of the known universe. Unicode just happens to be one way of representing them. Referring to them as "silly and made up" in comparison to Unicode is nothing short of extreme mental illness. All words are made up. I'm sorry you had to find out this way.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  > All words are made up. I'm sorry you had to find out this way. It's so, so interesting that you believe this to be true. Do you believe all things made by humans are made up? Is HN "made up"? Are other people "made up"?