3 ms·

Isn't this by definition not a legitimate use? They are mathematical symbols, not linguistic graphemes. Readers could dynamically read out the description of ev

Isn't this by definition not a legitimate use? They are mathematical symbols, not linguistic graphemes. Readers could dynamically read out the description of every non-letter, though that could be more confusing than helpful in some situations. They could explicitly add these cases as letters, though that would make the reader attempt to read math as words. Simply skipping them seems like the worst option, though. Legitimate or not, it is in practice a real-world usage, so readers should probably account for it, though I can't say I blame them for not doing so. Deciding how to treat every block of Unicode case-by-case would be an impossible task.

Ukv 2y ago
> could explicitly add these cases as letters, Unicode already defines compatibility equivalence[0]. Normalizing seems like the most sensible default for me - then it'd handle ｔｈｉｓ, ᵗʰⁱˢ, and so on. > though that would make the reader attempt to read math as words. For symbols originally intended for mathematical use, it probably then makes sense to add a special case to read out like T-H-I-S. But I wouldn't say that's strictly necessary - even in mathematical expressions you can have variables that are words rather than single letters, and either way it's definitely better than just skipping it. [0]: https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Compatibility_Equivalence_Figure https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Compatibility_Equivalence_...
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Call me old fashioned, but maybe if people want to communicate "this" they should just type "this" and stop trying to be so Internet-quirky.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    I think that comes back to: > Here the use is fairly frivolous, but most such character sets do have legitimate use - like fullwidth latin characters for readability when used alongside CJK - so really shouldn't just be skipped. The use given in the article is quirky - but these are real characters with proper uses and shouldn't just be skipped.
  - eviks 2y ago
    Old fashioned people dead centuries ago used formatting for their letters, no reason this is in any way "Internet-quirky", the real internet quirk stems entirely from silly platform constraints

Ukv 2y ago

> could explicitly add these cases as letters, Unicode already defines compatibility equivalence[0]. Normalizing seems like the most sensible default for me - then it'd handle ｔｈｉｓ, ᵗʰⁱˢ, and so on. > though that would make the reader attempt to read math as words. For symbols originally intended for mathematical use, it probably then makes sense to add a special case to read out like T-H-I-S. But I wouldn't say that's strictly necessary - even in mathematical expressions you can have variables that are words rather than single letters, and either way it's definitely better than just skipping it. [0]: https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Compatibility_Equivalence_Figure https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Compatibility_Equivalence_...

ryandrake 2y ago
Call me old fashioned, but maybe if people want to communicate "this" they should just type "this" and stop trying to be so Internet-quirky.
- Ukv 2y ago
  I think that comes back to: > Here the use is fairly frivolous, but most such character sets do have legitimate use - like fullwidth latin characters for readability when used alongside CJK - so really shouldn't just be skipped. The use given in the article is quirky - but these are real characters with proper uses and shouldn't just be skipped.
- eviks 2y ago
  Old fashioned people dead centuries ago used formatting for their letters, no reason this is in any way "Internet-quirky", the real internet quirk stems entirely from silly platform constraints