I love how many people brought up the Turkish “I” as if everyone here is on the Unicode steering committee or just got jobs for Turkish facebook.
I, an English speaker, have personally solved the problem by not having a Turkish I in the name of my Downloads directory, or any other directory that I need to cd into on my computer. I’m going to imagine the Turks solve it by painstakingly typing the correct I, or limiting their use of uppercase I’s in general.
In fact, researching the actual issue for more than 1 second seemingly shows that Unicode basically created this problem themselves because the two I’s are just seperate letters in Turkic languages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_and_dotless_I_in_computing
If you nerds think this is bad try doing Powershell for any amount of time. It is entirely case-insensitive.
Why the FUCK did they make characters that look the same have different codepointers in UNICODE? They should’ve done what they did in CJK and make duplicates have the same codepointer.
Well letters don’t really have a single canonical shape. There are many acceptable ways of rendering each. While two letters might usually look the same, it is very possible that some shape could be acceptable for one but not the other. So, it makes sense to distinguish between them in binary representation. That allows the interpreting software to determine if it cares about the difference or not.
Also, the Unicode code tables do mention which characters look (nearly) identical, so it’s definitely possible to make a program interpret something like a Greek question mark the same as a semicolon. I guess it’s just that no one has bothered, since it’s such a rare edge case.
In cases where something looks stupid but your knowledge on it is almost zero it’s entirely possible that it’s not.
The people that maintain Unicode have put a lot of thought and effort into this. Might be helpful to research why rather than assuming you have a better way despite little knowledge of the subject.
I love how many people brought up the Turkish “I” as if everyone here is on the Unicode steering committee or just got jobs for Turkish facebook.
I, an English speaker, have personally solved the problem by not having a Turkish I in the name of my Downloads directory, or any other directory that I need to cd into on my computer. I’m going to imagine the Turks solve it by painstakingly typing the correct I, or limiting their use of uppercase I’s in general.
In fact, researching the actual issue for more than 1 second seemingly shows that Unicode basically created this problem themselves because the two I’s are just seperate letters in Turkic languages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_and_dotless_I_in_computing
If you nerds think this is bad try doing Powershell for any amount of time. It is entirely case-insensitive.
Why the FUCK did they make characters that look the same have different codepointers in UNICODE? They should’ve done what they did in CJK and make duplicates have the same codepointer.
Unicode needs a redo.
Well letters don’t really have a single canonical shape. There are many acceptable ways of rendering each. While two letters might usually look the same, it is very possible that some shape could be acceptable for one but not the other. So, it makes sense to distinguish between them in binary representation. That allows the interpreting software to determine if it cares about the difference or not.
Also, the Unicode code tables do mention which characters look (nearly) identical, so it’s definitely possible to make a program interpret something like a Greek question mark the same as a semicolon. I guess it’s just that no one has bothered, since it’s such a rare edge case.
Why are the Latin “a” and the Cryilic “a” THE FUCKING SAME?
In cases where something looks stupid but your knowledge on it is almost zero it’s entirely possible that it’s not.
The people that maintain Unicode have put a lot of thought and effort into this. Might be helpful to research why rather than assuming you have a better way despite little knowledge of the subject.