Re: Thoughts on upsizing Unicode

On 04.04.2026 06:19, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Sławomir Osipiuk wrote:
> 
>> should we ever find ourselves in a world that needs a bigger Unicode
>> AND still uses UTF-16.
> 
> My hope is that, if the world ever does need more than 15 non-PUA planes for whatever reason, it will have moved on from UTF-16 by then, and the choice can be between -8 and -32.

IMHO in that case we should have a "new-Unicode". Let's be realistic: in 
such case using actual Unicode will cause many problems (not just the 
encoding): we may save some bits, but programs will be complex on 
handling properties (with a lot of changes on each version, else we will 
not reach such point). Without entering on the rendering (which the 
render/shaping engine, and hopefully the font system, must know the 
Unicode version of the text), we must have some canonization (which it 
is not "stable" in respect not-yet published Unicode, if we find future 
codepoint. Very common in our phones, computers, emails. Also security 
needs to know some Unicode properties. Modifiers and combining 
characters are also useful for programs (without need to know the 
properties or renderings).

So (but not in my lifetime), I think we should have some properties 
encoded in codepoints (e.g. a (or more) plane for LR, one for RL. Also 
combining characters should be split. Modifiers (hidden one, like 
variant selectors, ZW(N)J, etc.)

And compatible (maybe also binary for some encoding) with at least Basic 
Plane. Good luck! Let's hope we do not ever need it. And also let's hope 
that we will stabilize (far less additions) characters on some not so 
far future. History is not so long (history as the period with written 
records), there would be addition, but hopefully few.

giacomo