> Using 5 technically different extremely similar glyphs for 4 extremely niche corner cases of typography is nonsense. They're not extremely niche — they are c

> Using 5 technically different extremely similar glyphs for 4 extremely niche corner cases of typography is nonsense. They're not extremely niche — they are common and mostly obvious. > What actually matters to humans is that text can be copied and pasted and rendered unambiguously Yes. What is ambiguous is the hyphen-minus. It literally combines two meanings in its name. > These typographic rules are vestigial. They are still widely used, and still function as intended, so they are not vestigial. > We have inherited them from a time when it made no sense to limit the number of different characters used in script I would argue the opposite: they declined in use only because of a (temporary) limit to the number of characters available on some technologies. Thanks to Unicode the limit is removed and their use is increasing again.