Jump to content

Talk:Unicode: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙚
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 16: Line 16:
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(730d)
|algo = old(730d)
|archive = Talk:Unicode/Archive %(counter)d
|archi𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙚ve = Talk:Unicode/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

Revision as of 15:23, 21 February 2023

Template:Vital article


Requested move 16 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED: The consensus is that the current name properly describes the contents of this article and is not ambiguous. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode → Unicode Standard – The term "Unicode" is ambiguous, and may be used to refer to the Unicode Standard, the Unicode Consortium, Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, or any number of things related to the implementation of the Unicode Standard or the processing of Unicode text. The Unicode Consortium actively discourages the use of the term "Unicode" as an isolated noun ("Always use “Unicode” as an adjective followed by an appropriate noun. Do not use “Unicode” alone as a noun" Unicode Consortium Name and Trademark Usage Policy), and states that "The Unicode® Standard" should be used in preference to simply "Unicode" (of course we do not use ® on Wikipedia per MOS:TMRULES). The subject of this article is specifically the Unicode Standard (the opening sentence should be "The Unicode Standard is an information technology standard for ..."), and not the general concept of "Unicode", so the article should be moved to Unicode Standard, with Unicode left as a redirect to avoid having to rename thousands of wikilinks. BabelStone (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. See WP:OFFICIALNAMES. We do not use a name simply because it is official, and the common name here is Unicode. O.N.R. (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not address the ambiguity issue. "Unicode" is commonly used to refer to the Unicode Consortium. Just one random example from a BBC article: "Rachel Murphy and Amy Wiegand sent sample artwork to Unicode as part of their plea for a drone emoji", "Rachel Murphy thinks Unicode is wrong to not include a drone emoji", "Unicode rejected their proposal", etc. BabelStone (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally oppose as per O.N.R. above. As far as I have ever seen, in general usage, "Unicode" as a bare noun is only used to refer to the standard. Even at UTC meetings with actual officers and members present, use of plain "Unicode" referred only to the standard, never the consortium, Unicode encoded text, characters, or anything else. However, I fully agree the article lede should begin with "The Unicode Standard" as the official name. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 04:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We use common names, not official ones. -- Calidum 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to WP:PRECISE, not due to official names. That rationale is badly flawed, yes, but the precision one is very relevant. Red Slash 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, possibble ambiguity is limited to "[the] Unicode Standard" and "Unicode Consortium"; other terms mentioned in the proposal (Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, or any number of things ...) do not appear as ambiguous terms. What is ambigu in "Unicode characters"? — instead it is fully self-explaining! When specification between ...Standard or ...Consortium characters be needed, one should do so in the text. Also, a name like "Unicode CLDR" is not shortened to "Unicode" ever, nor is any Unicode Technical Report name [2], so these do not apply.
Second, Unicode themselves uses plain "Unicode" for the Standard throughout and consistently: see main TOC, Glossary. Except for self-referring situations, this leaves no misunderstanding (when self-referring could be confusing, one writes like "The Unicode Standard is maintained by Unicode Consortium"). No problem here.
On wikipedia: As others have noted, WP:OFFICIALNAMES applies. Also, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION: we can easily establish that "Unicode Standard" is the primary topic for "Unicode". From there, we can create article Unicode (disambiguation) (with two entrances then) and add hatnote {{about}} to this article. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, current title is preferred and acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with The subject of this article is specifically the Unicode Standard - it is about a broad concept of Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, Unicode input systems ... basically anything other than the organization called Unicode Consortium. I'm not opposed to a new History of the Unicode Standard article which focuses specifically on information about the development of versions of the Unicode Standard. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DePiep and 力 (power~enwiki). Also, if we are to use it, I believe the Wikipedia guidelines for capitalization would indicate that "standard" should be in lowercase (regardless of whether the consortium uses lowercase or not). Wikipedia avoids unnecessary use of uppercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History

Given what Unicode is, an important part of its history is its adoption by word processors (Word, OpenOffice, but notably not WordPerfect) and operating systems (Windows, Linux, ...) and fonts (TTF). As a practical matter for the end user, it didn't become available in 1988, but when they could use it for their documents (I think for most people this meant 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerabilities

A security advisory has been recently released from two researchers, one from the University of Cambridge and the other from the same and from the University of Edinburgh, in which they assert that carefully crafted computer source code can be used to introduce vulnerabilities in apparently harmless programs. Some security groups (like the one for Rust language) are already taking measures and issuing their own security advisories.

I think that is something that affects Unicode as source code is one of the main applications of the standard. What do ye think would be a good way to introduce that to the article?

[1] [2] [3]

Bruno Unna (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like existing Unicode § Issues is the place to go. Indeed, a true Unicode case (U+202E RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE). Also consider mentioning at Bidirectional text? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/11/trojan-source-bug-threatens-the-security-of-all-code/
  2. ^ https://www.trojansource.codes/trojan-source.pdf
  3. ^ https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/11/01/cve-2021-42574.html

سلام M.h.gholamii (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ko M.h.gholamii (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Unicode block: add a 'related' list?

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Unicode block § Related blocks. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quivira (typeface)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quivira (typeface) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Quivira (typeface) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 19:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question

I was designing text shapes for electrical symbols and electronic elements. I design them on the Unicode-encoded FontCreator program, but after exporting it and copying and pasting the symbol I designed into the phone programs, it does not work and appears in the form of a question mark, what is the solution? (Note this topic is important for articles development, I want to design different symbols for non-electrical shapes and not only in the field of electricity and I don't want them to be thumbnails but text). Mohmad Abdul sahib talk☎ talk 18:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, FontCreator has the appropriate font, containing the electric symbols. But the receiving programm does not. Looks like the font should have (Unicode block) Miscellaneous Technical. Requires downloadingf a certain font, but I cannot help any further. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version 15 & Wikidata

I am adding new blocks & data to Wikidata now. Assuming no DAB needed here, the pages are:

DePiep (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QID added -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
more listing -DePiep (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much time to complete this list, for me. DePiep (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, as far as I can see, only two content articles require the "(Unicode block)" DAB-specifier, because of name overlap. The other "X (Unicode block)" pages sould be redirects to their (unambiguously named) content Block article. See also {{Unicode blocks/overview}}. DePiep.
Recent changes in Unicode
List overview · Lists updated: 2022-10-01 · This box:

New Taskforce WikiProject Unicode?

A proposal is opened at WP:COMP § Taskforce WP Unicode –_proposal. Please take a look. DePiep (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Code Points

The lead claims that there are currently 149 186 characters in the Standard. That's confusing! Is that actual characters or does it include unprintable code points? I know what a code point is, my point is that the lead shouldn't confuse code points with characters. (I also argue that a "control character" isn't 'really' a character, not a grapheme, but that's a fight for somewhere else.) Writing about Unicode without an early clear explanation of what a code point is, is -I think- awful pedagogy. In fact, I don't think code point - a fundamental aspect of Unicode - is even defined in the article!!!! Wow, just wow.

I also would like someone to verify that Unicode has characters for color. I believe that's wrong/false/misleading. I am aware that certain emoji can be modified by a code point to change some of its color. As far as I know, this is only true with a very small set of code points, and a very very small set of colors (I don't actually know if the colors are well-defined, I'd expect so, but...). These aren't colors, but are color modifiers for those other code points. 174.130.71.156 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no color defining codes in Unicode but there are names of characters that specify a color if displayed on a color device. Searching the word color in the article shows some possibly confusing text about color but nothing outright wrong.
This article leaves a lot to be desired, if you wish to make changes, you should. It's a wiki after all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two Variation Selectors (U+FE0E and U+FE0F) which specify whether an Emoji should be ideally displayed in color or black and white, but other than that, there are no color specifications in Unicode. The term "character" and "code point" are specified in the Unicode Standard, and if you feel that the coverage here is inadequate in conveying the meaning of those terms, I absolutely encourage you to contribute content to better reflect their technical specification. For the record, any code point defined beyond "Not A Character" or "Reserved" is a "character". This means control characters and whitespace are all considered characters in Unicode, just like a letter in an alphabet, a Kanji with On and Kun readings, or a mathematical symbol. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 06:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is simply wrong.

The offending sentence is:"The Unicode standard defines three and several other encodings exist, all in practice variable-length encodings." (Sure, you could strain to interpret that to mean "all but UTF-32", but let's keep it clear. It clearly implies all encodings are variable length. Wikipedia's own article on UTF-32 says it is fixed length. (Because it only needs to use 21 of the 32 bits for Unicode code points, it is very inefficient (and rarely used, afaik). But rarely used is not the same as "doesn't exist", and "all are variable" clearly implies it doesn't exist. I'd have to look again, are there really 3 variable Unicode encodings? I can only think of UTF-8 and UTF-16. (and some others that afaik are not "defined" in the Unicode standard (like GB18030), or that are obsolete (like UTF-7).) Replace "all" with "all common encodings" or something similar, and mention UTF-32.174.130.71.156 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended meaning of this was that even if code points are fixed-size, modern Unicode is effectively variable-width, as what the user thinks is a "character" sometimes needs multiple code points.Spitzak (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Unicode includes both combining characters and precomposed characters, e.g., <U+0061 “a” latin small letter a> <U+0308 "¨" combining diaeresis> is equivalent to <U+00E4 "ä" latin small letter A with diaeresis>. Further, some glyphs exist at multiple code points for historical reasons. There is a discussion of cannonical forms in the Unicode standard. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me to describe code points as "fixed size". They're just an abstract number. It's when you encode (or store) the code points that you get variable lengths, at least for UTF-8, UTF-EBCDIC, and UTF-16 as described in the article. I think combining characters are a red herring for this discussion. DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Unicode standard does restrict the number of code points, so describing them as as fixed length 21-bit or 32-bit data is reasonable. Spitzak is referring to characters, which indeed are variable length, a separate issue from the length of an encoded code point that does deserve mention. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unicode&oldid=1140744562"