> On Aug 16, 2024, at 8:02 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop....@rwec.co.uk> > wrote: > On 17 August 2024 00:25:13 BST, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: >> I am not sure I agree with you that adding Unicode support is the wrong >> angle, per se. >> >> A strong argument could be made that Unicode support is a necessary but not >> sufficient building block for "internationalization support." IOW, if you >> want to get to the latter it is probably a lot easier to start with the >> former as the scope of the latter is by-nature larger. After all, perfect is >> the enemy of the good and waiting for a full-press effort for >> internationalization support could well push off Unicode support long down >> the road. > > Again, that's not really what I intended to say, but I'm probably not > expressing myself clearly. > > I was thinking about the way we frame the conversation, the words we focus > on, and how that shapes the conversation. > > The example that keeps coming to mind is password_hash/password_verify. It > seems to me that for years, the conversation was framed around > "cryptographically safe hashing functions", and teaching users why and how to > use powerful but confusing functions like hash() and crypt(). Then it got > reframed from the point of view of a web developer wanting to implement > logins, and we ended up with fantastically easy to use functions. > > In the same way, I think "Unicode support" should be the awkward background > work that we do *because we're trying to solve specific problems involving > text*. > > In the case of this thread, I think the actual user story is "I want to allow > users to enter a wide range of characters, but restrict them in contextually > appropriate ways to ensure various types of safety and security". The > implementation of that involves a lot of technicalities about how Unicode > works, but ideally we want to find meaningful abstractions of those > technicalities, not just require every user to understand them.
We are in no real disagreement there. -Mike P.S. I do think we could reach the same end-goal by taking either direction since Unicode support is a building block of solving specific problems involving text, and thus needs to happen either way. But, as I implied earlier, whichever road takes us there works for me so no need for me to further bikeshed it, as long as the road we take will not result in a dead-end.
