|
|
|
|
|
by tialaramex
2394 days ago
|
|
More particularly: Presentation variant is not a justification for inclusion in Unicode BUT prior encoding in another character set is. Unicode sets a high priority on roundtripping. The idea is that if you take some data in any one character set X and convert it to Unicode, you should preserve all the meaning by doing this, such that you could losslessly convert it back to encoding X. It's like the wordprocessor problem where users say they only want 10% of the features of a popular wordprocessor but it turns out each user wants a different 10% and so the only way to deliver what they all want is to deliver 100% of the features. Likewise, Unicode has all the weird features of every legacy character set which was embraced BUT it doesn't arbitrarily add new weird features, although you could argue that some of the work done for Unicode has that effect e.g. the way flags work or the Fitzpatrick modifiers. If Unicode had insisted upon never encoding anything that might be a presentation feature, it'd be a long forgotten academic project that never went anywhere and we'd all be using some (probably Microsoft designed) 16-bit ASCII superset today. |
|