4 ms·
> Why didn't they simly replace the original bad one? Starting with version 2.1 they made it so that code points can't ever be unassigned. People were getting
by zahlman 2mo ago
> Why didn't they simly replace the original bad one?
Starting with version 2.1 they made it so that code points can't ever be unassigned. People were getting really upset with the removals, since they can result in old data being misinterpreted. (Er, nothing actually was removed in 2.1, but it probably didn't become official policy until 3.0… ?)
Besides, it's useful to have the bad characters in there for people who want to write posts like this one discussing them.
- eviks 2mo agoBut it's even more useful for people who want to use the actual character to be able to use it! And you can discuss using other means, not like drawings or old standard data disappears Weird absolutism re error preservation instead of striving for correctness
- zahlman 2mo ago> But it's even more useful for people who want to use the actual character to be able to use it! ... And they can, since a code point was assigned for it; so what's the problem?
- eviks 2mo agoThe problem is quoted right there in my original comment!
- zahlman 2mo agoThere isn't any actual problem. People who want to use the character can still do so. If you're referring to > was not added to JIS or Unicode until much later then TFA is simply inaccurate; 𡚴 has been in Unicode since 2001. More importantly, replacing the incorrect character (instead of supplementing it) wouldn't realistically have made it possible to add it sooner. They didn't really know what they were doing back at the start.