Yes, i had written 'egyptian hieroglyphs' but how about banal CJK? We still have no way to insert nonstandard ideogramme into text. Isn't it a simple task? There are just 20 basic strokes :) ok, 500 basic symbols. Or 200000? However we can't combine it together :( ! Unicode is to complex standard. I even don't know how many properties have one character (did you know about unicode-coloured characters? - there was somewhere that my theme in this list), how can i know how my application has to render 'plain' text with bidi, noncanonicordered diacritics, and korean script. Right, i don't know that. And my application render it in my way, some else in another (a_a / aa_ - double comb. char., sure you seen that), so we have no standard at all. Off course, i can learn this complex standard, but what for? Most of them i never use. There must be a simpler system, not so many aprior data for it work.
2011/9/13, John H. Jenkins <jenk...@apple.com>: > > QSJN 4 UKR 於 2011年9月12日 下午9:06 寫道: > >> I know it is sacred cow, but let me just ask, how do you people think. >> Is it good or bad that the codepoint means all about character: what, >> where, how... (see theme)? Maybe have we separate graph & control >> codes - wellnt have many problems, from banal ltr (( rtl instead ltr >> (rtl) to placing one tilde above 3, 4, anymore letters, or egyptian >> hierogliphs in rows'n'cols. Conceptually, I mean! Each letter in text >> is at least two codepoints ("what" and "where") in file. Is it stupid? >> Trying to render the text we anyway must generate this data. >> > > > It's not really a sacred cow per se, but it is a fundamental architectural > decision which would be pretty much impossible to revisit now. > > Almost all writing is done using a small set of script-specific rules which > are pretty straightforward. English, for example, is laid out in horizontal > lines running left-to-right and arranged top-to-bottom of the writing > surface. East Asian languages were traditionally laid out in vertical lines > running from top-to-bottom and arranged right-to-left on the writing > surface. > > Because some scripts are right-to-left and ltr and rtl text can be freely > intermingled on a single line, Unicode provides plain-text directionality > controls. The preference, however, is to use higher-level protocols where > possible. > > As for the scripts which are inherently two-dimensional (using > hieroglyphics, mathematics, and music), it's almost impossible to provide > "plain text" support for them. There is too much dependence on additional > information such as the specifics of font and point size. Because of this, > the UTC decided long ago that layout for such scripts absolutely must be > done using a higher-level protocol to handle all the details. > > There are occasionally suggestions that positioning controls be added to > plain text in Unicode, but so far the UTC has felt that the benefits are too > marginal to overcome its reasons for having left them out in the first > place. > > ===== > Hoani H. Tinikini > John H. Jenkins > jenk...@apple.com > > > > >