Ciao TW Tones If you want to explore this more, collectively, maybe start a new thread? So our comments are not in Mohammad's thread, which has a slightly different scope.
Unicode interests me a lot. And there a few things you are coming across that, with a bit of exposition, are useful to know about in more detail. Diacritical marks, as you hint, for instance, have great usefulness beyond being "combining marks". Best wishes, TT On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 22:01:00 UTC+1, TW Tones wrote: > > TT, > > You are right to raise these issues. I suppose I am now on the Journey to > understand Unicode and make use of it. > here are a few observations; > > - MS Windows has fonts to address many Unicode Characters > - There exists a "last resort font" for Unicode > - There are as many as 120,000 Unicode characters, most in different > languages and of reduced value to non speakers of each language. > - Outside of English many languages make use of diacritical > characters, ie marks applied to other characters. > - This facility can also be used to create compound characters, for > example the common "no smoking symbol" circle with a /, can be applied > to > other characters > - Tiddler titles can use many of these additional characters including > alternate A-Z, a-z ands 0-9 characters and others > - Tiddler fieldnames are restricted to the single a-z 0-9 character > set and no Unicode Characters permitted. > - I have not tested Unicode characters with the new slugify widgets. > - I continue to learn about Unicode and their application to > tiddlywiki. > > Tones > > On Wednesday, 11 November 2020 23:13:13 UTC+11, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> 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 characters above Unicode FFFF which can >> need encoding). Not an issue per se but can make search 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/fd9887fa-9a4b-4200-be67-67efce57dfbco%40googlegroups.com.
