Fix Phobos dependencies on autodecoding

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 4:59:45 PM MDT H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d 
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:37:57PM +0000, Gregor Mückl via Digitalmars-d 
wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 22:04:01 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > Basically, there is no sane way to avoid detaching the character
> > > encoding from the physical appearance of the character.  It simply
> > > makes no sense to have a different character for every variation of
> > > glyph across a set of fonts.  You *have* to work on a more abstract
> > > level, at the level of the *logical* identity of the character, not
> > > its specific physical appearance per font.
> >
> > OK, but Unicode also does the inverse: it has multiple legal
> > representations of characters that are logically the same, mean the
> > same and should appear the exact same (the later doesn't necessarily
> > happen because of font rendering deficiencies). E.g. the word "schön"
> > can be encoded two different ways while using only code points
> > intended for German. So you can get the situation that "schön" !=
> > "schön".  This is unnecessary duplication.
>
> Well, yes, that part I agree with.  Unicode does have some dark corners
> like that.[*]  But I was just pointing out that Walter's ideal of 1
> character per glyph is fallacious.
>
> [*] And some worse-than-dark-corners, like the whole codepage dedicated
> to emoji *and* combining marks for said emoji that changes their
> *appearance* -- something that ought not to have any place in a
> character encoding scheme!  Talk about scope creep...

Considering that emojis are supposed to be pictures formed with letters
(simple ASCII art basically), they have no business being part part of an
encoding scheme in the first place - but having combining marks to change
their appearance definitely makes it that much worse.

- Jonathan M Davis