Reputation
1,761
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
3 19 39
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~96k people reached

Jan
11
revised What is the advantage of choosing ASCII encoding over UTF-8?
deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
Jan
11
awarded  Notable Question
Jan
10
awarded  Good Question
Jan
10
revised What's a schrödinbug?
edited title
Dec
5
awarded  Popular Question
Oct
21
awarded  Good Question
Sep
19
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
18
awarded  Popular Question
Jul
6
comment What is the difference between btree and rtree indexing?
Cool, thanks =) Are there other structures besides these 3, or planned structures in the near future?
Jul
5
comment What is the difference between btree and rtree indexing?
Does MySQL support Rtrees?
Jun
24
awarded  Popular Question
Jun
20
comment “Interface” vs. “layer”
So what's the difference between interface and protocol ?
Jun
8
awarded  Caucus
May
13
comment What limitation will we face if each user-perceived character is assigned to one codepoint?
@tchrist As in your example, in Greek, we can't simply combine a Ω + ´ + ` + ῾ because it doesn't belong to that language. I grant that you can combine Ω with ´ because it is valid in Greek. I grant that you can combine Ι + ´ + ¨ because it is valid as well. But combinations aren't arbitrary in a natural language. Even after adding all possible variations of diacritic combinations, Greek has only 188 characters. What's wrong with giving each of them a unique code point?
May
13
comment What limitation will we face if each user-perceived character is assigned to one codepoint?
@tchrist For example, in Japanese we can't simply combine a + + because it doesn't make any sense in that language. Yes I'm aware Unicode allows us to combine a + + , my argument is that that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Unicode should have just assigned a unique code point to each character for the ~7000 natural languages used on Earth.
May
13
comment What limitation will we face if each user-perceived character is assigned to one codepoint?
@tchrist I hope we attack the argument and not the person. Your argument is that they are valid because they are legit Unicode extended grapheme clusters. My argument is that Unicode shouldn't have made them legit because the result isn't a valid character in any natural language at all. Math notations, emoticons, elf languages, and IPA transcriptions are irrelevant to the argument. I'm arguing against using diacritics for the ~7000 natural languages used on Earth. goo.gl/lq7Xd, goo.gl/C2dn
May
13
comment What limitation will we face if each user-perceived character is assigned to one codepoint?
@tchrist I don't understand why you are bringing in style rules here. Underlining and bolding are effects on characters. For example, a "z" character whether underlined or bolded is the same thing in English. I'm talking about the characters a natural language uses. My point is that the total number of characters in the ~7000 natural languages used on Earth is below 4b. So Unicode should have just kept it simple and assign 1 number to each of them. Even the number of Chinese characters is only roughly 100k+, let it expand by 1000 times and we have 100 million+, still far from 4b.
May
13
comment What limitation will we face if each user-perceived character is assigned to one codepoint?
@tchrist Iterating graphemes is starkly different than iterating words. In a language, there's no fixed number of possible word combinations, but there's certainly a fixed number of possible characters. As an example, Unicode allows us to merge e with with with ˆ with ˝. But the resulting character is unused in any language. It is unlikely that there are 2^32 (4 billion) standalone characters, because there's no such thing as language characters being subject to infinite variation.
Apr
30
awarded  Yearling
Mar
30
awarded  Nice Question