>>5
>>7
My thoughts are summarized here: http://verisimilitudes.net/2019-11-22
It's amusing to be called a contrarian, since there seems to be little resistance against going with the flow in these discussions. The people who think UTF-8 is fine probably also think UNIX is good.
>>9
>>14
>>15
It's pleasant to see my work mentioned by another. Be well, considering that gas issue.
Honestly, you do realize words come and go, right?
Words can be considered eternal.
People who complain that emojis are taking up precious space in the unicode standard ought to be aware that exactly this would happen with a dictionary-styled encoding.
There's the threat of a dictionary containing degenerations, such as ebonics, but that's a wider social issue.
Moreover, are we really that pressed in space (memory/storage) that we need to optimize language for it?
This is omnipresent in these discussions. Anything new need prove it's not inefficient, but the status quo receives no such skepticism, even when obviously grossly inefficient. Computers are far more capable, and sending individual characters as if they were teletypewriters is just as obscene as using an operating system half a century old which emulates them.
Remember that oftentimes, the simpler idea is the more correct.
What's beautiful and correct about Unicode? What's beautiful and correct about ASCII, a quarter of which is control characters which must be treated specially? There's no beauty and correctness, instead mere familiarity.
>>17
No. It could be better, because special cases would be eliminated. Consider the text rendering flaw of iOS which crashed the machines. It's obscene it was even conceivable.
>>18
>>19
I see these people following in the thread starter's footsteps. Don't be mental midgets. I need to, and will, rewrite that article, but it includes the following sentence:
In any case, this is one important reason why most any implementation of this system should permit circumventing the dictionary, with yet another reason being related to freedom of expression.
I've given a great deal of thought to this, and the best solution is having an alternative dictionary where necessary; I'd considered inlining such words, but this was a terrible solution. A single bit would determine whether a code uses the standard dictionary, or the alternation, and this avoids unnecessarily disadvantaging the use of words not in the former, also avoiding breaking the nicer qualities of the representation.
Part of the folly of unicode is the homoglyph. Text shouldn't be shown without its language being apparent, which defeats this issue.
>>25
Part of the reason for this is because humanity still thinks the idiots programming the computers should have more say than the entirety of the humans which preceded them. Programmers simply aren't accustomed to writing programs which actually work, or which bend over backwards for the environment they serve.
>>26
I don't suggest so, but this ties into my thoughts on character sets. Obviously, character sets are generally better than representing text as a mass of glyphs; the idea I propose merely takes it further, rather than calling character sets the final form for forever.