Ciao PMario Right. But beyond 16 it looks like *A* character it isn't exactly that. But glad you'd be happy with that.
Sure there are many pairs not to use because of common usage already. That still leaves a lot of Unicode pairs available. There are more than I pointed too. My POINT, I think, was IF we took Unicode more seriously *pairing would be so much easier*. There are two issues in our context ... 1 - does the end user need to see what the author used? My guess is that they *don't.* I mean we are doing this to make WRITING easier. But most READERS won't be writers so will never need to see the markup glyphs. 2 - font support is a very complex issue. It is extremely difficult to determine what glyphs are available visually universally (because of sophisticated OS substitutions). HOWEVER, I made the point that in many cases it is ONLY the author who needs to have them supported by a font. Thoughts TT On Friday, 25 September 2020 12:20:12 UTC+2, PMario wrote: > > On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:11:56 AM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > Unicode does provide many *paired glyphs*, albeit some are outside the >> UTF-16 range. >> See, for instance, *some *of them: >> https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/mirrored >> > > For javascript, it's not necessary, to use UTF-16. It can work with > unicode. So technically, we should be able to use any character in the > unicode space. > > ... BUT I would need feedback, which of them make sense. The "mirrored" > chars are mainly math. So only very view of them can be used, without > creating unintended "meaning". > > -m > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/b61051f8-2b47-4161-b992-ea7b8a94e754o%40googlegroups.com.
