3 ms·

If they're always supposed to look the same, then Unicode should encode them the same, even if they mean different things in different contexts.

pavel_lishin 3y ago
Two counterpoints: 1. Unicode isn't a method of storing pixel or graphic representations of writing systems; it's meant to store text, regardless of how similar certain characters look. 2. What do you do about screen readers & the like? If it encounters something that looks like a little half-moon glyph that's in the middle of a sentence about foreign alphabets that reads "Por ejemplo, la letra 'c'", should it pronounce it as the English "see" or as Russian "ess"?
- Izkata 3y ago
  For 8 minutes of this (among other translation mistakes), you've reminded me of Peggy Hill's understanding of Spanish in the cartoon King of the Hill - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62A1vkSxB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62A1vkSxB0 (IIRC, she learned the language entirely from books so has no idea of the correct pronunciation and thinks she's fluent)
- patal 3y ago
  1. "graphic representation of writing systems" and "text" mean the same thing to me. Do you mean text as spoken? 2. I think the pronunciation should not be encoded into the text representation on a general scale. You would need different encodings for "though" and "through" in english alone. Your example leaves the meaning open, even if being read as text. If I was the editor, and the distinction was important, I'd change it to "For example, the cyrillic letter 'c'". I understand that Unicode provides different code points for same-looking characters, mostly because of history, where these characters came from different code sheets in language-specific encodings.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    I mean text as in the platonic ideal of "c" and "с". Just because they look the same, does not make them the same character. If we're going to be encoding characters that happen to have pixel-identical renderings in certain fonts, the next logical step is to encode identical letters that look different in different fonts or writing styles as separate code points as well - for example, the English letter "g" is a fucking orthographic nightmare.
    - kps 3y ago
      Imagine if, say, English people normally wrote an open ‘g’ and French normally wrote a looped ‘g’, and you have the essence of the Han Unification debates.
- tzs 3y ago
  > 1. Unicode isn't a method of storing pixel or graphic representations of writing systems; it's meant to store text, regardless of how similar certain characters look. I'm not sure that that is really possible without something way bigger or more complicated than Unicode. Consider the string "fart". In English that means to emit gas from the anus. In Swedish it means speed. Does that mean Unicode should have separate "f", "a", "r", and "t" for English and Swedish? > 2. What do you do about screen readers & the like? If it encounters something that looks like a little half-moon glyph that's in the middle of a sentence about foreign alphabets that reads "Por ejemplo, la letra 'c'", should it pronounce it as the English "see" or as Russian "ess"? What would a human do if that was in a book and they were reading it aloud for a blind friend?
Joker_vD 3y ago
What about Latin "k" and Cyrillic "к"? Do they look the same in your font of choice? Should they?
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Those look different, so I have no issue with them being different code points.
  - eviks 3y ago
    But they don't "fundamentally" look different, it's font dependent(there are fonts where they look the same), just like the same Latin k will look different depending on a font, so you need a better rule to make your own simple Unicode
    - Joker_vD 3y ago
      He's probably the guy who decided to add fraktur/double-strike/sans-serif/small-caps/bold/script/etc variants of Latin letters to the Unicode because, you know, they look different! so they should get their own special code points. It was a joke, by the way.
  - allarm 3y ago
    The capitalized "K" and "К" look exactly the same though.
    - pavel_lishin 3y ago
      Not in my font!
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      When I look at your post, in "K", the lower diagonal line branches off of the upper diagonal line, slightly breaking horizonal symmetry, but "К" is horizontally symmetrical.
    - loa_in_ 3y ago

pavel_lishin 3y ago

Two counterpoints: 1. Unicode isn't a method of storing pixel or graphic representations of writing systems; it's meant to store text, regardless of how similar certain characters look. 2. What do you do about screen readers & the like? If it encounters something that looks like a little half-moon glyph that's in the middle of a sentence about foreign alphabets that reads "Por ejemplo, la letra 'c'", should it pronounce it as the English "see" or as Russian "ess"?

Izkata 3y ago
For 8 minutes of this (among other translation mistakes), you've reminded me of Peggy Hill's understanding of Spanish in the cartoon King of the Hill - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62A1vkSxB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62A1vkSxB0 (IIRC, she learned the language entirely from books so has no idea of the correct pronunciation and thinks she's fluent)
patal 3y ago
1. "graphic representation of writing systems" and "text" mean the same thing to me. Do you mean text as spoken? 2. I think the pronunciation should not be encoded into the text representation on a general scale. You would need different encodings for "though" and "through" in english alone. Your example leaves the meaning open, even if being read as text. If I was the editor, and the distinction was important, I'd change it to "For example, the cyrillic letter 'c'". I understand that Unicode provides different code points for same-looking characters, mostly because of history, where these characters came from different code sheets in language-specific encodings.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  I mean text as in the platonic ideal of "c" and "с". Just because they look the same, does not make them the same character. If we're going to be encoding characters that happen to have pixel-identical renderings in certain fonts, the next logical step is to encode identical letters that look different in different fonts or writing styles as separate code points as well - for example, the English letter "g" is a fucking orthographic nightmare.
  - kps 3y ago
    Imagine if, say, English people normally wrote an open ‘g’ and French normally wrote a looped ‘g’, and you have the essence of the Han Unification debates.
tzs 3y ago
> 1. Unicode isn't a method of storing pixel or graphic representations of writing systems; it's meant to store text, regardless of how similar certain characters look. I'm not sure that that is really possible without something way bigger or more complicated than Unicode. Consider the string "fart". In English that means to emit gas from the anus. In Swedish it means speed. Does that mean Unicode should have separate "f", "a", "r", and "t" for English and Swedish? > 2. What do you do about screen readers & the like? If it encounters something that looks like a little half-moon glyph that's in the middle of a sentence about foreign alphabets that reads "Por ejemplo, la letra 'c'", should it pronounce it as the English "see" or as Russian "ess"? What would a human do if that was in a book and they were reading it aloud for a blind friend?

Joker_vD 3y ago

What about Latin "k" and Cyrillic "к"? Do they look the same in your font of choice? Should they?

josephcsible 3y ago
Those look different, so I have no issue with them being different code points.
- eviks 3y ago
  But they don't "fundamentally" look different, it's font dependent(there are fonts where they look the same), just like the same Latin k will look different depending on a font, so you need a better rule to make your own simple Unicode
  - Joker_vD 3y ago
    He's probably the guy who decided to add fraktur/double-strike/sans-serif/small-caps/bold/script/etc variants of Latin letters to the Unicode because, you know, they look different! so they should get their own special code points. It was a joke, by the way.
- allarm 3y ago
  The capitalized "K" and "К" look exactly the same though.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    Not in my font!
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    When I look at your post, in "K", the lower diagonal line branches off of the upper diagonal line, slightly breaking horizonal symmetry, but "К" is horizontally symmetrical.
  - loa_in_ 3y ago