Friday, October 23, 2015 [Tweets] [Favorites]

Dark Corners of Unicode

Lexy Munroe (via Ole Begemann):

This is a particularly aggravating problem because most programming languages have facilities for comparing and changing the case of text built in, and most of them are extremely naïve about it. You can’t even correctly change the case of English-looking text without knowing what locale it came from — the title-case of “istanbul” may actually be “İstanbul” depending on language, because of Turkish’s dotted “i”.

[…]

There’s a character called U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER, which is used to combine otherwise distinct characters in some languages (but has fairly general semantics). Apple has made creative use of this character to compose emoji together. The report on emoji has some examples. So now the length of some text is completely arbitrary, based on whatever arbitrary ligatures the font includes.

[…]

Arguably, 16-bit faux strings are worse than 8-bit faux strings. It becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly that 8 bits is not enough to fit more than some European alphabets, and anyone but the most sheltered programmer is forced to deal with it the first time they encounter an em dash. But 16 bits covers the entire BMP, which contains all current languages, some ancient languages, dingbats, mathematical symbols, and tons of punctuation. So if you have 16-bit faux strings, it’s very easy to think you have all of Unicode automatically handled and then be sorely mistaken.

See also Nicolas Seriot’s Unicode Hacks (via Cédric Luthi).

Comments

Stay up-to-date by subscribing to the Comments RSS Feed for this post.

Leave a Comment