Re: Unicode "no-op" Character?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 17:50:49 -0400
Sławomir Osipiuk via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:

> If faced with the same problem today, I’d
> probably just go with U+FEFF (really only need a single char, not a
> whole delimited substring) or a different C0 control (maybe SI/LS0)
> and clean up the string if it needs to be presented to the user.

You'd really want an intelligent choice between U+FEFF (ZWNBSP) (better
U+2060 WJ) and U+200B (ZWSP).

> I still think an “idle”/“null tag”/“noop” character would be a neat
> addition to Unicode, but I doubt I can make a convincing enough case
> for it.

You'd still only be able to insert it between characters, not between
code units, unless you were using UTF-32.

Richard.
Received on Sat Jun 22 2019 - 18:17:10 CDT