3 ms·

Maybe Unicode should add a new code block for these fleurons. They'd all be combining-characters, and you would build effectively a mini-DSL for describing fleu

Maybe Unicode should add a new code block for these fleurons. They'd all be combining-characters, and you would build effectively a mini-DSL for describing fleurons as geometric compositions of radicals.

surprisetalk 3y ago
I ADORE this idea. I wonder how far one could take it with just ligatures?
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Font shapers would definitely have one of the moments of all time with this one.
- lopis 3y ago
  > I wonder how far one could take it with just ligatures? Very, very far... https://blog.erk.dev/posts/anifont/ https://blog.erk.dev/posts/anifont/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2sn2DXjlA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2sn2DXjlA
crazygringo 3y ago
That would totally break the basic conceptions of line height and font size though. The fleuron in the top image is probably five lines tall. Arranging fleurons is great, but that seems it should belong to the realm of word processing layout or drawing program arrangement, not something at the Unicode/font level. Complex fleurons aren't graphemes; they're illustration.
- bsza 3y ago
  > That would totally break the basic conceptions of line height and font size though So do [combining characters], yet they're valid Unicode.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    No they don't. That hasn't changed the line height at all. And obviously those combinations don't exist in any actual writing system. It's a (funny) abuse of the Unicode design, not the intention of the design.
    - bsza 3y ago
      You did write "break the basic conceptions of", not "change". To me, a line overlapping with the previous two lines seems to do exactly that. Also, the original suggestion was for Unicode to add ornamental combining characters. I don't see how that would require any breaking change. You can already stack them vertically and horizontally.
    - perihelions 3y ago
      That vertical-stacking combining pattern is similar to how Tibetan script actually works (on a smaller scale): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script?useskin=vector#Consonant_clusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script?useskin=vector#...
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't zalgo on HN. It makes the thread less readable and thus the discussion less interesting. Edit: I've scrubbed it out of your comment and put the formerly zalgoed text in [square brackets].
    - greenyoda 3y ago
      For those not familiar with the term "zalgo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  It's pretty much on the Unicode level. Its goal is to support world's writing systems - current, extinct, and even fictional. > Complex fleurons aren't graphemes; they're illustration. The line between writing systems and illustrations is pretty blurred, if you look closely enough. Especially now, with composable and even AI-generated emoji. (I wonder if they regret including emoji now...)
derefr 3y ago
So like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic_Description_Characters_(Unicode_block) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic_Description_Charac... , but instead of describing the compositions, they actually perform them?
- graypegg 3y ago
  Oh wow that’s interesting. Would be interesting if it actually performed the change, and on any character. Pointing emojis in the right direction with the Horizontal Reflection modifier would probably be useful!
- perihelions 3y ago
  Unicode doesn't perform it, but I understand it's straightforward to typeset it in, for example, TeX/MetaPost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36809624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36809624 ("Typesetting Rare Chinese Characters in LATEX")
california-og 3y ago
Any complex combination or arrangement of fleurons or other type ornament is not really possible with any contemporary word processor for one good reason: type is not set by hand anymore. Precise but free placement of glyphs is tedious if not impossible. It would require a whole new paradigm of setting type, one that would be based on modularity and strict typographic measurement system. A digital letterpress system if you will. The closest we've had that digitally was probably textmode and ASCII art.

surprisetalk 3y ago

I ADORE this idea. I wonder how far one could take it with just ligatures?

LoganDark 3y ago
Font shapers would definitely have one of the moments of all time with this one.
lopis 3y ago
> I wonder how far one could take it with just ligatures? Very, very far... https://blog.erk.dev/posts/anifont/ https://blog.erk.dev/posts/anifont/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2sn2DXjlA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF2sn2DXjlA

crazygringo 3y ago

That would totally break the basic conceptions of line height and font size though. The fleuron in the top image is probably five lines tall. Arranging fleurons is great, but that seems it should belong to the realm of word processing layout or drawing program arrangement, not something at the Unicode/font level. Complex fleurons aren't graphemes; they're illustration.

bsza 3y ago
> That would totally break the basic conceptions of line height and font size though So do [combining characters], yet they're valid Unicode.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No they don't. That hasn't changed the line height at all. And obviously those combinations don't exist in any actual writing system. It's a (funny) abuse of the Unicode design, not the intention of the design.
  - bsza 3y ago
    You did write "break the basic conceptions of", not "change". To me, a line overlapping with the previous two lines seems to do exactly that. Also, the original suggestion was for Unicode to add ornamental combining characters. I don't see how that would require any breaking change. You can already stack them vertically and horizontally.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    That vertical-stacking combining pattern is similar to how Tibetan script actually works (on a smaller scale): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script?useskin=vector#Consonant_clusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script?useskin=vector#...
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't zalgo on HN. It makes the thread less readable and thus the discussion less interesting. Edit: I've scrubbed it out of your comment and put the formerly zalgoed text in [square brackets].
  - greenyoda 3y ago
    For those not familiar with the term "zalgo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text
orbital-decay 3y ago
It's pretty much on the Unicode level. Its goal is to support world's writing systems - current, extinct, and even fictional. > Complex fleurons aren't graphemes; they're illustration. The line between writing systems and illustrations is pretty blurred, if you look closely enough. Especially now, with composable and even AI-generated emoji. (I wonder if they regret including emoji now...)

derefr 3y ago

So like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic_Description_Characters_(Unicode_block) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic_Description_Charac... , but instead of describing the compositions, they actually perform them?

graypegg 3y ago
Oh wow that’s interesting. Would be interesting if it actually performed the change, and on any character. Pointing emojis in the right direction with the Horizontal Reflection modifier would probably be useful!
perihelions 3y ago
Unicode doesn't perform it, but I understand it's straightforward to typeset it in, for example, TeX/MetaPost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36809624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36809624 ("Typesetting Rare Chinese Characters in LATEX")

california-og 3y ago

Any complex combination or arrangement of fleurons or other type ornament is not really possible with any contemporary word processor for one good reason: type is not set by hand anymore. Precise but free placement of glyphs is tedious if not impossible. It would require a whole new paradigm of setting type, one that would be based on modularity and strict typographic measurement system. A digital letterpress system if you will. The closest we've had that digitally was probably textmode and ASCII art.