UTF-8 Unicode operators vs digraphs

[Walter Bright]

On 8/14/2026 7:38 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:13:34PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Unicode should never have gotten into the font business.
> 
> It didn't.  Whatever made you think it did?

https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/1D6.html

https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/fraktur.html

> You totally missed my point.  My point is that n and п are the SAME
> THING in Cyrillic.  Just as upright L and cursive L are the same thing
> in English.  If "there is only n and n", then what you're actually
> saying is that Cyrillic п is the same thing as English n, even though
> they have different font shapes.  You're contradicting yourself.

If two code points have the same glyph, they should be the same code point.

> The problem is, glyph shapes are font-dependent.  And different fonts
> don't agree with each other.

The Unicode standard shows a picture of each glyph. If there are more than one 
with the same glyph, they should have the same code point. It's as simple as that.

> See, here you contradict yourself.  You just said that if two glyphs
> have different shapes, they must be different codepoints.  It's obvious
> that upright A and italic A are different shapes.  Therefore they must
> be different codepoints.

Italics are a font choice.