Hacker News Reader

Comment by lelf | Hacker News Reader

Every top comment is about Emoji… Law of triviality in action ;)

  Also in Version 12.0, the following Unicode Standard Annexes have notable modifications ⟨…⟩
  UAX #14, Unicode Linebreaking Algorithm
  UAX #29, Unicode Text Segmentation
  UAX #31, Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax
  UAX #38, Unicode Han Database (Unihan)
  UAX #45, U-Source Ideographs

View on HN

Monospace is hard to read on mobile, please don't use it for quoting.

It's not triviality.

How many people do you really think care about Elymaic script? Or about Nandinagari?

Why would you bring up something relatively obscure and ignore all the other major non-emoji changes?

In addition to what grandparent listed:

> UTS #10, Unicode Collation Algorithm—sorting Unicode text

> UTS #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms—reducing Unicode spoofing

> UTS #46, Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing—compatible processing of non-ASCII URLs

I think plenty of people care about these changes.

Presumably some people. Assigning code points is the Unicode consortium’s job. That’s what unicode does. Nobody should be upset that they keep doing it.

But you ignore the substance of the parent’s post which is about the new elements of the Unicode standard which are not confined to assigning code points. There is substance there to be analyzed - there is material there about how Unicode should be used in defining identifier syntaxes which is of high relevance to an HN audience (eg in defining your new serverless framework, what characters should you allow in function names? Unicode now has a better answer for you than ‘[a-zA-Z_0-9-]’).

There are updates to Unicode security and idna support.

But no, sure, let’s complain about emoji and obscure languages.

>Assigning code points is the Unicode consortium’s job. That’s what unicode does. Nobody should be upset that they keep doing it.

Why not?

Something being "somebody's job", and others being upset that that somebody keeps doing it, can be very logical. E.g.

1) if the job wastes resources, is deemed silly, is done badly, etc.

2) if the job is detrimental to those others

Reply on news.ycombinator.com