guappa a day ago

That would be extremely wasteful, every single text file would be 4x larger and I'm sure eventually it would not be enough anyway.

Reply View 2 replies
  • Ekaros a day ago

    Maybe we should have just replaced ascii, horrible encoding were entire 25% of it is wasted. And maybe we could have gotten a bit more efficiency by saying instead of having both lower and uppercase letters just have one and then have a modifier before it. Saving lot of space as most text could just be lowercase.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • guappa a day ago

      yeah that's how ascii works… there's 1 bit for lower/upper case.

      Reply View 0 replies
bawolff a day ago

I think combining characters are a lot simpler than having every single combination ever.

Especially when you start getting into non latin-based languages.

Reply View 0 replies
amake a day ago

What does "no combinations" mean?

Reply View 3 replies
  • Ekaros a day ago

    Like say Ä it might be either Ä a single byte, or combination of ¨ and A. Both are now supported, but if you can have more than two such things going in one thing it makes a mess.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • amake a day ago

      That's fundamental to the mission of Unicode because Unicode is meant to be compatible with all legacy character sets, and those character sets already included combining characters.

      So "no combinations" was never going to happen.

      Reply View 0 replies