On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> For unique identifiers for every person, place, thing, etc, consider > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier which are > indeed 128 bits. > > What makes you think a single "glyph" that represents one of these 3.4⏨38 > items could possibly be sensibly distinguishable at any sort of glance > (including long stares) from all the others? I have an idea for that: we > can show the actual *digits* of some encoding of the 128-bit number. Then > just inspecting for a different digit will do. > there's no restirction that it be one character cell in size... rendered glyphs could be thousands of pixels wide... sorry to drag this on ;) > > Now, what about a registry for "important" (and not-necessarily-important) > UUIDs for key things and people, which associates them with an image of > some kind? Some sort of global icon? And indeed, perhaps used for > Internet-of-Things-like things? Not necessarily a bad idea—but decidedly > outside of the scope of Unicode. (Maybe you could even assign your beloved > sentences to some UUIDs and stick them in such a registry. Again, who > knows, maybe a decent idea. But it ain't Unicode.) > > ~mark > > > On 04/02/2018 02:15 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > >> Doug Ewell wrote: >> >> Martin J. Dürst wrote: >>> >> >> >>> Please enjoy. Sorry for being late with forwarding, at least in some >>>> parts of the world. >>>> >>> >> >>> Unfortunately, we know some folks will look past the humor and use this >>> >> as a springboard for the recurring theme "Yes, what *will* we do when >> Unicode runs out of code points?" >> >> An interesting thing about the document is that it suggests a Unicode >> code point for an individual item of a particular type, what the document >> terms an imoji. >> >> This being beyond what Unicode encodes at present. >> >> I wondered if this could link in some ways to the Internet of Things. >> > >
