3 ms·
The real question is why don't we just have a <begin SVG> and <end SVG> Unicode tag, and let people go to town with whatever they want in the glyph space. It s
by floxy 2y ago
The real question is why don't we just have a <begin SVG> and <end SVG> Unicode tag, and let people go to town with whatever they want in the glyph space. It seems like that's what people really want? What are the down-sides? Sending obscene characters becomes easier. You lose the "meaning", since maybe Apple's version of the unicorn horse-shoe (unicorn-shoe?) has a different SVG encoding than Google's. Security-type denial-of-service-issues, with people rendering Mandelbrot fractal glyphs?
- mysterymath 2y agoThis wouldn't have worked for the llvm-mos use case I mentioned; the actual identity is the useful part. I'd expect each of these symbols was associated with a numeric code on a legacy computing platform, and having a Unicode assignment makes it possible to machine-convert text from these systems to and from Unicode.
- lifthrasiir 2y agoWell, they tried multiple times! Some tried a direct image, some tried a compact hash of images that should be known in advance ("Coded Hashes of Arbitrary Images"), another tried a direct mapping to Wikidata entities ("QID emojis"). They ultimately failed because... yeah, they would have been much more difficult to implement than what we have right now.