TW Tones wrote: > > > I have also started to look into the use of the larger Unicode Character > set <https://www.unicode.org/charts/> page down to Symbols and > Punctuation. > > As long as you have an appropriate font most of these will work. >
Right. I totally agree that Unicode is under-utilized. And can, and should, be used, to great (economical) effect. There are three issues I know about ... 1 - Are the investigated Unicode Glyphs SUPPORTED by common fonts *available in Standard Default fonts on major OS*? (i.e. they will work even IF you have not explicitly set them up in a TW's config?). *I think that issue needs making explicit and answered explicitly for TW otherwise we'll stay stuck in the "black arts of Unicode use", which much of the web is.* *We'd have to shed light on Unicode workings to use it optimally, I think. * 2 - FONT REPRESENTATIONS of a Unicode code point can massively differ. That has happened because some Unicode characters have been "hi-jacked" for purposes never anticipated, in software and in OS. (The "Play" button you see often on web-pages is an example; other than simple "Emojis" provide many more extensive examples). This is a limited issue---but significant in that some of the most used glyphs DIVERGE on looks. 3 - Anything above The Basic Plane in Unicode is actually more than one character on web (its to do with and characters above Unicode FFFF which can need encoding). Not an issue per se but can make search made much more complex. Tony, I'm not trying to diss your enthusiasm, which is good, & I support using UC much more, but merely point to understandings needed for good Unicode use. Best wishes TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/fe12f7ef-1858-4550-b56b-bb17dcbfcde0o%40googlegroups.com.
