Unicode has lots of control characters that can create function such as reversing the text that follows. On the other hand it doesn't have control characters to set the color of text. It seems there's plenty of free space in unicode. Why did they decide against having unicode control characters that determine textcolor?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Oded May 23 '16 at 12:45

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • maybe because two bytes are too few to express an acceptable color range – JoulinRouge May 23 '16 at 12:58
  • 5
    @Oded : Why is this opinion based? Unicode seems to be designed by a committee that has a public mainling list in which design decisions are discussed. It seems to me possible that a person understand that actual reasons of why the committee decided the way it did. – Christian May 23 '16 at 13:01
  • 4
    Unicode is concerned about creating a universal standard for encoding text. It does NOT attempt to represent presentation issues like font sizes, styles, color, layout etc, or even how the characters look. – JacquesB May 23 '16 at 13:20
  • 2
    @JacquesB However, there are skin tone modifiers for Emoji, and a few letters in specific fonts (needed for maths). But aside from that (and from ligatures) you're right: there are no presentational characters. Pseudo-presentational characters like non-joiners, bidi manipulators, strikethrough modifiers, … have significant semantics in some languages and are not included for text effects. – amon May 23 '16 at 13:26
  • 2
    @Christian: It is also a text encoding issue, since the direction changes the meaning. – JacquesB May 23 '16 at 16:22

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.