panpog

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   Why did Unicode want codepointwise round-tripping? One codepoint in a legacy encoding becoming two in Unicode doesn't seem like it should have been a problem. In other words, why include precomposed characters in Unicode?
2. 2.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   You still get the combinatoric explosion, but you have more bits to work with. Imagine if you could combine any 9 jamo into a single hangul syllable block. (The real combinatorics is more complicated, and I don't know if it's this
3. 3.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   Can you fit everything into 32 bits? I have no idea, but Hangul and indict scripts seem like they might have a combinatoric explosion of infrequently used characters.
4. 4.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   Of course you sometimes need tailoring to a particular language. On the other hand, I don't see how encoding untailered casing would make tailored casing harder.
5. 5.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   It seems plausible that this could be made efficiently doable byte-wise. For example, C3 xx could be made to uppercase to C4 xx. Unicode actually does structure its codespace to make certain properties easier to compute, but those propertie
6. 6.▲
   by panpog 1y ago

   There is only one integer k that we can actually write down (given much more paper than could fit in the universe) such that ZFC+ “BB(748)=k” is consistent. However, given that same k, ZFC+ “BB(748)≠k” is also consistent. ZFC+ “BB(748)≠k” h