Fix Phobos dependencies on autodecoding

[H. S. Teoh]

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...


T

-- 
MS Windows: 64-bit rehash of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition.