1. 24
  1.  

  2. 4

    “Unicode is crazy complicated, but that is because of the crazy ambition it has in representing all of human language, not because of any deficiency in the standard itself.”

    I would argue that the “crazy ambition” is, in and of itself, a deficiency in the standard. Unicode’s complexity has given rise to things like security vulnerabilities and a character set which adds arbitrarily chosen pictograms to itself every few years, all for the sake of a massive set of features, most which which very few people actually end up using. I find the original goal of Unicode far more admirable than what it’s become today:

    Unicode is intended to address the need for a workable, reliable world text encoding. Unicode could be roughly described as “wide-body ASCII” that has been stretched to 16 bits to encompass the characters of all the world’s living languages […] Unicode gives higher priority to ensuring utility for the future than to preserving past antiquities.

    1. 3

      That sounds pretty in-line with Unicode today to me. They even admit that preservation of past antiquities and “all the world’s living languages”. I certainly don’t think Unicode has put lesser priority on future utility than past antiquity, e.g.

      ?