[erlang-questions] Binary string literal syntax

[Fred Hebert]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Fred Hebert <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:

That's fine and good, but the problem comes from the fact that graphical
> (and logical) representation is not equal to the underlying codes creating
> the final character. Those exist for all kinds of possible ligatures and
> assemblies of "character parts" in various languages, but for Emojis, you
> can also make a family by combining individual people: ��‍��‍��‍�� is a
> family composed of 4 components with combining marks: �� + ��  + �� + ��,
> where + is a special combining mark (a *zero width joiner*) between two
> women and two boys. If you go ahead and consume that emoji using the /utf8
> modifier, you'll break the family apart and change the semantic meaning of
> the text.
>
> If you edit the text in a text editor that traditionally has good support
> for locales and all kinds of per-language rules, such as Microsoft Word
> (the only one I know to do a great job of automatically handling half-width
> spaces and non-breakable spaces when language asks for it), pressing
> backspace on ��‍��‍��‍�� will remove the whole family as one unit. If you
> do it in FireFox or Chrome, deleting that one 'character' will take you 7
> backstrokes: one for each 'person' and one for each zero-width joining
> character. Slack will consider them to be a single character and visual
> studio code behaves like the browsers (even if both are electron apps), and
> notepad.exe or many terminal emulators will instead expand them as 4 people
> and implicitly drop the zero-width joining marks.
>

Well this kind of illustrates my point. Instead of seeing the unicode
family as 4 joined people in one unit (see
https://emojipedia.org/family-woman-woman-boy-boy/), it appears gmail has
expanded the family into 4 distinct people. So please use the emojipedia
reference when reading my previous e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180606/1f78bdcc/attachment.htm>