4 ms·

> > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology > That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encount

by mrj 14y ago

> > it's true that Unicode is (relatively speaking) very new for such a fundamental technology > That's becoming quite hard an argument to swallow when encountering astral planes issues in 2012 when Unicode 2.0 was introduced in 1996. I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. There are bugs in old stuff all the time but (most) people don't throw a fit.

pyre 14y ago
Unicode is being called 'cutting edge' because it's no longer 'old hat.' Lots of things claim support for Unicode, but few (or none) support it well. Unicode isn't a software project, it's a spec/idea. It's like calling a Star Trek tricorder "cutting edge" because no one has implemented a fully-functional version. Sure the idea has been around for a while, but at this point there's no acceptable manifestations of that idea.
masklinn 14y ago
> I don't get your argument. MySQL was also released around that time and we don't call it "cutting edge" because we found a bug. Not supporting astral planes and saying you're supporting utf-8 is not a bug, it's a lie.