Unicode block for programming related symbols and codepoints?
alfred_z at web.de
Mon Feb 9 08:57:15 CST 2015
> Le 09/02/2015 13:55, Alfred Zett a écrit :
>>> Additionally, people tend to forget that simply because Unicode is
>>> doing emoji out of compatibility (or other) requirements, it does
>>> not mean that "now anything goes". I refer folks to TR51
>>> (specifically sections 1.3, 8, and Annex C).
>>> : http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51
>> You know, the fact that this consortium ever took emoji into
>> consideration immediately justifies to include everything everyone
>> ever wanted. There is no such thing as important data including
>> emoji. :)
> The including of emoji was a considerable debate here, with people
> strongly against and strongly for. The trick is that they were already
> used as digital characters by Japanese Telcos and their millions of
> customers. They were de facto encoded as characters in Japanese text
> messages. At the time of encoding, the spread of smartphones made them
> appear in other places (emails, web forums, etc.)
The trick is that one doesn't bargain with Telcos and similar criminals.
Gotta drop them hard and the pest will go away from itself after five
years or so.
>> Jean-Francois Colson:
>>> I need a few tens of characters for a conlang I’m developping. ☺
>> Except two or three control characters don't make a con language.
>> Also, if you don't like con languages in Unicode, what's this:
> I doubt that “not liking con languages” is a faithful description of
> Jean-François ;-)
> On a more serious notes, this block is actually a set of “scientific”
> (at his time) notations used by Isaac Newton in its time. They were
> encoded in Unicode following an academic project to digitize his
> manuscripts. So here, you have characters used 3 centuries ago by no
> less than Isaac Newton, most of them having a much longer history, and
> useful for science historians. See
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2009/09037r2-alchemy.pdf for details.
That's actually interesting. Good to know, thanks.
> I think everyone her knows what you are saying, and that the notion of
> plain text is a bit fuzzy. But if you cannot argue that your character
> has a meaning in plaint text, for some value of “plain text”, then you
> can not hope for an encoding in Unicode.
OK, in this case I agree it makes little sense to hope for such characters.
More information about the Unicode