3 ms·

Unicode should be easy to standardize. It's never going to be, but making arbitrary decisions on what's 'useful' or not just makes the process harder by making

by derleth 13y ago

Unicode should be easy to standardize. It's never going to be, but making arbitrary decisions on what's 'useful' or not just makes the process harder by making everyone's blood pressure go up every single time that kind of decision has to be made. Frankly, one of the biggest advantages of having so many codepoints is being able to burn some of them on less-useful shit simply so the standards folk can move on.

igravious 13y ago
I definitely see what you are saying. I suppose after you've included the glyphs for the world's natural languages and common shared symbols you're going to move into more contentious areas. I'd prefer them to be a bit more conservative though but I see your point of view. What if we start having well known brand logos like the ubiquitous golden arches as codepoints. I would argue they've gone too far here and broken with the spirit of the enterprise.
- derleth 13y ago
  > What if we start having well known brand logos like the ubiquitous golden arches as codepoints. I think trademark laws would stop that. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone else is, either, so the uncertainty would prevent it from happening. I do see what you're saying, and it would be a slap in the face if a script for a fictional language were standardized before every script for every living language made it in to the standard. However, and this is where you and I differ, I don't really see that much difference between emoticons and other little-used typographical marks living languages sometimes use. Face it: The smiley face is typed a lot more often than the per mil mark (like the percent mark, except 'per thousand' instead of 'per hundred'): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_mil So the middle finger is rude. People are rude sometimes, and the middle finger is a well-established way of showing that, myths about its origin aside: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp

by derleth 13y ago

igravious 13y ago

I definitely see what you are saying. I suppose after you've included the glyphs for the world's natural languages and common shared symbols you're going to move into more contentious areas. I'd prefer them to be a bit more conservative though but I see your point of view. What if we start having well known brand logos like the ubiquitous golden arches as codepoints. I would argue they've gone too far here and broken with the spirit of the enterprise.

derleth 13y ago
> What if we start having well known brand logos like the ubiquitous golden arches as codepoints. I think trademark laws would stop that. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone else is, either, so the uncertainty would prevent it from happening. I do see what you're saying, and it would be a slap in the face if a script for a fictional language were standardized before every script for every living language made it in to the standard. However, and this is where you and I differ, I don't really see that much difference between emoticons and other little-used typographical marks living languages sometimes use. Face it: The smiley face is typed a lot more often than the per mil mark (like the percent mark, except 'per thousand' instead of 'per hundred'): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_mil So the middle finger is rude. People are rude sometimes, and the middle finger is a well-established way of showing that, myths about its origin aside: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp