Comment by Waterluvian

A big part of the problem is that the reaction to early updates was so bad that they promised they would never un-assign or re-assign a code point ever again, making it impossible for them to actually correct any mistakes (not even typos in the official standard names given to characters).

The versioning is actually almost completely backwards by semver reasoning; 1.1 should have been 2.0, 2.0 should have been 3.0 and we should still be on 3.n now (since they have since kept the promise not to remove anything).

I would. The original sin of Unicode is really their manifold idea, at that point they stopped trying to write a string standard and started to become a kinda general description of how string standards should look like and hopefully string standards that more or less conform to this description are interoperable if you remember which direction "string".decode() and "string".encode() is.

What could be better? Human languages are complex

The enforcement is an app-level issue, depending on the semantics of the field. I agree it doesn't belong in the low-level transport protocol.

The rules for "username", "display name", "biography", "email address", "email body" and "contents of uploaded file with name foo.txt" are not all going to be the same.

This is the job of the Bidi Algorithm: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/

Of course, this is an “annex”, not part of the core Unicode spec. So in situations where you can’t rely on the presentation layer’s (correct) implementation of the Bidi algorithm, you can fall back to directional override/embedding characters.

Read the parent’s link. The characters “to be avoided” are a particular special-purpose subset, not directional control characters in general.

They should have at least all used a single system. Instead, we have:

* European-style combining characters, as well as precomposed versions for some arbitrary subset of legal combinations, and nothing preventing you from stacking them arbitrarily (as in Zalgo text) or on illogical base characters (who knows what your font renderer will do if you ask to put a cedilla on a kanji? It might even work!)

* Jamo for Hangul that are three pseudo-characters representing the parts of a larger character, that have to be in order (and who knows what you're supposed to do with an invalid jamo sequence)

* Emoji that are produced by applying a "variation selector" to a normal character

* Emoji that are just single characters — including ones that used to be normal characters and were retconned to now require the variation selector to get the original appearance

* Some subset of emoji that can have a skin-tone modifier applied as a direct suffix

* Some other subset of emoji that are formed by combining other emoji, which requires a zero-width-joiner in between (because they'd also be valid separately), which might be rendered as the base components anyway if no joined glyph is available

* National flags that use a pair of abstract characters used to spell a country code; neither can be said to be the base vs the modifier (this lets them say that they never removed or changed the meaning of a "character" while still allowing for countries to change their country codes, national flags or existence status)

* Other flags that use a base flag character, followed by "tag letter" characters that were originally intended for a completely different purpose that never panned out; and also there was temporary disagreement about which base character should be used

* Other other flags that are vendor-specific but basically work like emoji with ZWJ sequences

And surely more that I've forgotten about or not learned about yet.

One benefit of the suffix convention is that strings sort more usefully that way by default, without requiring special handling for those characters.

Unicode 1.0 also explains: “The convention used by the Unicode standard is consistent with the logical order of other non-spacing marks in Semitic and Indic scripts, the great majority of which follow the base characters with respect to which they are positioned. To avoid the complication of defining and implementing non-spacing marks on both sides of base characters, the Unicode standard specifies that all non-spacing marks must follow their base characters. This convention conforms to the way modern font technology handles the rendering of non-spacing graphical forms, so that mapping from character store to font rendering is simplified.”