Pd: Odp: Re: Unicode fundamental character identity

[piotrunio-2004@wp.pl]

Dnia 23 stycznia 2025 16:51 piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl <piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl> napisał(a):
       
    
       
           Because the emoji characters are encoded distinctly from corresponding, similar non-emoji characters, then by definition they are distinct in plain text. What you are debating here is whether there was a  need  for them to be distinguished in plain text.  Your opinion evidently is that there is not a need.   They aren't encoded distinctly yet as of Unicode 16.0. It is circular reasoning to claim that proposed characters are considered distinct because the proposal encodes them separately.   However, major vendors long ago provided convincing evidence to UTC that they do have such a need. That is why UTC not only approved the proposal in L2/23-252 to encode separate emoji character but also had specifically asked for that proposal to be written.   Whether the evidence is convincing is subjective as well, and I'm not here to interfere with L2/23-252, but in L2/25-037 I provide evidence that some of the HP 264x, PETSCII, and Apple II characters need to be encoded differently than how they are currently encoded. Round trip compatibility (for HP 264x) and the fundamental distinction between blocks based on fractions of bounding box and strokes based on the font weight (as in PETSCII and Apple II) should be enough evidence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20250123/63f2d5bd/attachment.htm>