this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
220 points (98.2% liked)
Programming
17423 readers
42 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does unicode have bold/italics/underline/headings/tables/...etc.? Isn't that outside of its intended goal? If not, how is markup unnecessary?
Yes, and even ππππ»π» ππππ π £π ·π π. And table lines & edges & co. are even already in ASCII.
π€·<- this emoji has at least 6 color variants and 3 genders.
Because the editor could place a π―πΌπΉπ± instead of a **bold**, which is a best-case-scenario with markdown support btw. And i just had to escspe the stars, which is a problem that native unicode doesn't pose.
What about people who prefer to type
**bold**rather than type a word, highlight it, and find the Bold option in whichever textbox editor they happen to be using?Which is what i ask for, better (or at all) support for unicode character variations, including soft keyboards.
Imagine, there was a switch for bold, cursive, etc on your phone keyboard, why would you want to type markup?
And nobody would take
**bold**away, if you want to write that.Would you have to do that for every letter? I suppose a "bold-on/bold-off" character combination would be better/easier, and then you could combine multiple styles without multiplying the number of glyphs by some ridiculous number.
Anyways, because markup is already standardized, mostly. Having both unicode and markup would be a nightmare. More complicated markup (bulleted lists, tables) is simpler than it would be in Unicode. And markup is outside of Unicode's intended purpose, which is to have a collection of every glyph. Styling is separate from glyphs, and has been for a long time, for good reason. Fonts, bold/italics/underline/strikethrough, color, tables and lists, headings, font size, etc. are simply not something Unicode is designed to handle.
Yeah, had the same thought, edited already.
I don't like that approach. Text search won't find all the different possible Unicode representations.
You always find some excuses, huh? That would be a bug.
Always? That's my first reply. Bug of what? A flaired character has a different code than a standard one, so your files would be incompatible with any established tools like find or grep.
My bad, confused you with someone else.
You can always update them.