ꙮ seems to just be a fancy way of writing О. I haven't seen anything that says it has a different meaning. The arguments for excluding Klingon seem to apply even more so to ꙮ.
A weird solitary character from the 1400s isn’t subject to that, and even if it’s a mistake it’s probably not worth breaking compatibility at this point (I think the last such break with code points genuinely changing meanings was to repair a mistaken CJK unification some time in the 00s, and the Consortium may even have tied its own hands in that regard with the ever-more-strict stability policies).
Similarly, for example, old ISO keyboard symbols (the ⌫ for erase backwards, but also a ton of virtually unused ones) were thrown in indiscriminately at the beginning of the project when attempting to cover every existing encoding, but when the ISO decided to extend the repertoire they were told to kindly provide examples of running-text (not iconic) usage in a non-member-body-controlled publication. (Crickets. The ISO keyboard input model itself only vaguely corresponds to how input methods for QWERTY-adjacent keyboards work in existing systems—as an attempt at rationalization, it seems to mostly be a failed one.)
> I think the last such break with code points genuinely changing meanings was to repair a mistaken CJK unification some time in the 00s, and the Consortium may even have tied its own hands in that regard with the ever-more-strict stability policies[.]
Not exactly, the last break happened between Unicode 1.1 and 2.0 and the new CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A block still contains unified characters. The main reason for break was that both Hangul and CJK(V) ideographs required tons of additional code points and it became clear that 16-bit code space is dangerously insufficient; by 1.1 there was only a single big block of unassigned code points from U+A000 to U+E7FF (18,432 total), and there were 4,516 and 6,582 new Hangul and CJK(V) ideographs in 2.0 (11,098 total).
“A linguist has revealed he talked only in Klingon to his son for the first three years of his life to find out if he could learn to speak the 'language'.
[…]
Now 13, Speers' son does not speak Klingon at all.”
I see that near it, there is an ef (Ф) with a very tall stem.
Why should that not be included as a standard unicode character? Surely it is used more often than the multiocular o.
You may say "it's a decorative flourish", which is of course true, but so is the multiocular o. Should we allow every conceivable decorative flourish into unicode? What is the standard for where flourishes become distinct characters?
I also wonder how these didn't become insanely popular overnight, like the famous eggplant.
〜 ( ꒪ ꒳ ꒪ ) 〜
( ༎ຶ ෴ ༎ຶ )
This doesn't contradict the stated goal exactly, but it seems against the spirit of it at least.
So a peach emoji is not the same thing as the iOS peach-emoji-image. Similar to how changing my font doesn't change the actual characters.
I don't think including emojis was a great idea, but now that it's happened and people everywhere use them, emoji have become characters. I agree with your point, but it's already happened and so now there's not really any going back.
I mean, this ship has long sailed, but that was a mistake nevertheless. Not everything has to be a unicode character.
For example I could see there being an emoji for keyboard cat.
However, I could totally see some kind of open source GIF library of a few hundred meme videos and pictures, to standardize the "Reply with a GIF" thing in some P2P chat ecosystem, and maybe it could have a new URL scheme for referring to OpenMemes images.
Don't tell me Presidents of the United States' song "Peaches" was about butts!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaches_(The_Presidents_of_the...
The song was definitely a vaginal reference as far as I ever knew.
Personally I think there should be, actually. There's all these other body parts but these are left out. Emoji is almost becoming a language and the good thing is that everyone can understand them, regardless of language. For example I could imagine these could be very useful in an international medical setting. Or for sexting, obviously, we can pretend that's not a thing but that's a bit too Victorian for me.
Of course they're not appropriate in some settings but so are many words.
It was introduced with other "ocular O"s which are seemingly more commonly used than this one.
It's not quite an illuminated initial.
"This document requests the addition of a number of Cyrillic characters to be added to the UCS. It also requests clarification in the Unicode Standard of four existing characters. This is a large proposal. While all of the characters are either Cyrillic characters (plus a couple which are used with the Cyrillic script), they are used by different communities. Some are used for non-Slavic minority languages and others are used for early Slavic philology and linguistics, while others are used in more recent ecclesiastical contexts. We considered the possibility of dividing the proposal into several proposals, but since this proposal involves changes to glyphs in the main Cyrillic block, adds a character to the main Cyrillic block, adds 16 characters to the Cyrillic Supplement block, adds 10 characters to the new Cyrillic Extended-A block currently under ballot, creates two entirely new Cyrillic blocks with 55 and 26 characters respectively, as well as adding two characters to the Supplementary Punctuation block, it seemed best for reviewers to keep everything together in one document.
(...)
MONOCULAR O Ꙩꙩ, BINOCULAR O Ꙫꙫ, DOUBLE MONOCULAR O Ꙭꙭ, and MULTIOCULAR O ꙮ are used in words which are based on the root for ‘eye’. The first is used when the wordform is singular, as ꙩкꙩ; the second and third are used in the root for ‘eye’ when the wordform is dual, as ꙫчи, ꙭчи; and the last in the epithet ‘many-eyed’ as in серафими многоꙮчитїй ‘many-eyed seraphim’. It has no upper-case form. See Figures 34, 41, 42, 55."
Han unification only means that when you convert Japanese encodings (B) to Unicode (A), it is not distinguishable from non-Japanese encodings converted to Unicode. This means that the Unicode text doesn't always follow domestic conventions without out-of-band signaling or IVD or so. But if you know that the text was converted from a particular encoding, you can perfectly recover the original text encoded in that encoding.
I can’t speak of other letters that were added in the same batch in 2007. Some of them seam meaningful, I donno, I don’t speak old church slavonic (although I am told it sounds like Croatian, which I understand a little)
Fonts bloat (do you want a font with 1 million characters in it ? I don’t. Do you want to have to install 1000 fonts having 1000 characters each to be sure to cover all the Unicode table ? I don't).
Lots of issues for everyday programmers (how do you handle weird unicode characters in your validation code ?) potentially leading to security issues (bypassing validation rules by close-but-different characters, phishing…)
Only for characters from existing coded character sets.
You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but it doesn't change Unicode's mission. Besides, there's room for 1,112,064 codepoints[a], and only 149,146 are in use. It's predicted we'll never use it up, so what harm is there in one codepoint no one will ever need?
[a]: U+10'FFFF max; it used to be U+FFFF'FFFF, but UTF-16 and surrogates ruined that