Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Surprisingly it's actually the correct way to render that unicode. It's just a stack of upper diactrics http://jsbin.com/erajer/7/?%E0%B8%81%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%89%E0%B9... as explained in this stackoverflow answer http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10414864/whats-up-with-th...


Technically "correct" you mean; if there was an unicode character that filled all the screen with the color black it would not matter if it were technically "correct", usability correct is more important.


I disagree.

If stacking diacritics are a legitimate part of a language and they change the meaning of words or characters, then it's more important that the content be correct than the "usability."

In fact, if a person can't read it or reads it incorrectly because parts of characters are hidden, then it's not very usable.

Hypothesizing about a Unicode character that fills the screen with black is a nonsensical straw man, because it makes no sense in "real world" written languages, so there would never be a Unicode character for it.


False; diacritics commonly used in the real-world such as "´¨`" fit inside the same space as the characters, this successive chain of diacritics is never used in real-world texts except for very few obscure cases. Plus the implementation of UTF8 should include the line-height required for the correct displaying of the character if they really believe the displaying of obscure characters is more important than usability.


UTF-8 is an encoding and has no say on how a given character should be rendered.


What is obscure for you is not obscure for someone else.


Are you implying Thai diacritics are not "commonly used in the real world"?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: