Unicode "no-op" Character?
Shawn Steele via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sat Jun 22 18:56:11 CDT 2019
Assuming you were using any of those characters as "markup", how would you know when they were intentionally in the string and not part of your marking system?
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at unicode.org> On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham via Unicode
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 4:17 PM
To: unicode at unicode.org
Subject: 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.
More information about the Unicode