Thanks! I just learned that the Cyrillic zhe is based on Kurt Vonnegut’s picture of an asshole.
2 Likes
ᘓᘐ
I either made a stussy S or a loose 69
I guess I didn’t realize there were that many… at least not that many people use often.
And good luck not locking up your browser as it tries to handle a page that big.
It’s basically a dumb idea. You can only scan for the character if you know the actual name, so it’s far quicker to just Google it.
1 Like
Who says the whole page would have to load at once? That would be unreadable. Why wouldn’t you just load the portion that was viewable and maybe prefetch the next? That is, if you wanted to browse instead of search. Or are you one of these new school kid coders that thinks you have to have everything in RAM?
1 Like
Why? What about loading the whole page would make it “unreadable”?
So if what you’re looking for is near the bottom of the document, you’re going to load the whole page, and it will therefor become “unreadable”.
And searching your page will not be any better than searching Google (and worse, in a lot of respects).
1 Like
As noted, what constitutes a good search interface depends on what you already know and what you seek to find out; so I’m not saying that my proposal is the universal ideal: if you know what the character looks like; but not what it is called, you obviously want exactly the opposite mechanism. That said, it’s worth noting that “if you know the actual name just google it” is pretty much exactly my proposal, except without the need to bring Google into it because we are talking a relatively tiny dataset.
(And, parenthetically, once the 104MB PDF is cached, my fairly boring copy of Chrome loads it in under 30 seconds. My Core i5 and 24 GB of RAM is probably a trifle on the high side; but we just aren’t talking a terrifying file here, and that’s the fully-prettied-up-and-ready-for-printing version. The codepoint definitions are roughly an order of magnitude smaller.)
1 Like
Your roll-your-own solution requires that you know the exact spelling, while Google is faaaaar more forgiving.
I’m not going to say that google doesn’t do it better, or that it wouldn’t be easier to count on them. I was saying all the glyfs on one page would be unreadable. I was also talking about browsing trough the glyphs or descriptions. Not search.
(I’m also pulling your chain a bit because you often jump in saying things are “stupid” while making assumptions about the use cases.)
Again, what about that would make it “unreadable”?
Right double arrow with rounded head: ⥰
close enough
1 Like
Defective… Did not recognize the Prince Ankh
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
