13 comments

  • WA 34 minutes ago
    Nice, but way too many abbreviated descriptions and no way to see the full name of a symbol without clicking on it. Needs a tooltip / title.

    Or better, if 90% of all symbol names are abbreviated, your design simply doesn't work. This is especially apparent in the "arrows" section.

  • jdeisenberg 1 hour ago
    I’m looking at the currency block. Each box has a colored “drop shadow”. I spent a minute or so trying to figure out what the significance of the color is. Finally, I noticed that the color appears to cycle between cyan, magenta, and yellow. Is this a design element only, or do the colors actually have some meaning with respect to the symbol?
    • yarlinghe 1 hour ago
      Purely cosmetic. In hindsight, probably unnecessary — but once you add color, it’s hard to stop
    • spoiler 1 hour ago
      Not the author, but it seems to be only stylistic
  • chrismorgan 6 minutes ago
    > Use an HTML entity, a decimal code, or a hex code.

    Please no: just write the character. <, & and (in quoted attributes) " or ' are the only characters that need to be encoded; a few others have arguable benefit to being encoded (most notably NO-BREAK SPACE), but most Unicode characters should just be put in literally. The days when you couldn’t be confident of the file encoding are past: your HTML is being served as UTF-8 (or in the rare case it isn’t, you should fix that instead of avoiding non-ASCII in the source).

    Same deal with CSS (" and \ are the only ones you need to escape) and JavaScript (" or ' or `, as appropriate).

    URLs? Occasionally you may encounter a legacy system where you need to percent-encode it yourself (similarly around punycoding internationalised domain names), but you can almost always (and thus, in my opinion, should) just write it and leave anything that wants it to be ASCII to perform the percent-encoding itself.

    Excel I can’t comment on, but I presume you can just write "≈" and UNICHAR should almost never be used.

  • keepamovin 50 minutes ago
    This is beautiful. Love the design. When I read the title I thought it was "one page per Unicode" so I click on the codes and hope a page will open with a giant Unicode where I can see about it in details.

    Oh well! Still good.

    When I click the "Click to copy" my UI reflex tells me to look for a "Copied!" or similar acknowledgement. But I don't see one, so there's uncertainty if it was copied safely to my invisible clipboard or not.

    Please keep making this, it's good! What inspired you for the design? I like this style, and notice it around, but can't pinpoint.

  • ChrisMarshallNY 52 minutes ago
    Very nice.

    I found it odd, that tapping on a square “highlights” it, by making it “pop,” but nothing else really happens.

    It took me a bit to figure out that I need to actually select the arrow in the upper right corner, to get the page.

  • arendtio 43 minutes ago
    Some constructive criticism:

    Please don't display text directly on the grid background image. It makes it impossible to read the text easily. Currently, this is the case when you open the page for a specific symbol in the 'Usage & Context' section.

  • mda 1 hour ago
    On mobile, the expand icon covers 1/4 of each character so it is hard to see what they are
    • yarlinghe 55 minutes ago
      Yeah, mobile is rougher than desktop right now. Thanks for flagging it.
  • victrflow 1 hour ago
    Ohh, this is great! I actually was looking for something like this the other day. Thanks for sharing and nice work!
  • yarlinghe 4 days ago
    Planning to add more symbol-specific notes (confusables, common pitfalls, rendering quirks). Curious what details people usually look for but can’t find.
    • __patchbit__ 4 days ago
      I don't know how to find the ideal font for the missing glyph on my environment which is BSD.

      Using the `unicode' command from plan9userspace, for example

         unicode 2ff0-2fff
      
      the last three symbols are shown inside emacs as squares with the four hex values inside.

      Typing in the search field `2fff' finds `no match found'.

      • yarlinghe 4 days ago
        Good catch — I just pushed an update based on this.

        The symbols search now supports code-point lookup, so you can search by:

        U+2FFF

        0x2FFF

        plain hex (2fff, 4–6 digits)

        This makes it possible to jump straight to a symbol page even when the glyph doesn’t render locally and you only have the code point (like the Emacs/BSD case you described).

        One limitation to note: some symbols aren’t covered by common or default system fonts, so they may still appear as tofu boxes depending on the font stack. That’s a font coverage issue rather than Unicode itself.

        Appreciate you calling this out — this was exactly the kind of workflow gap I wanted to catch.

        • longor1996 51 minutes ago
          Maybe you could use unifont glyphs (drawn as SVGs?) as fallback?
  • rswail 1 hour ago
    I'd like the hint to display the hidden parts of each box when hovered.

    I don't need to be told on each one to "Click to Copy".

    But nice concept.

    • yarlinghe 58 minutes ago
      Good points. The hover hint could definitely do more useful work, and the repeated “Click to Copy” is probably overexplaining. UI polish still very much in progress
  • LordGrey 4 days ago
    I really like this. I appreciate the many "copy" buttons that make it easy to grab various font values once I find a character. Good job!
    • yarlinghe 4 days ago
      Thanks — glad the copy buttons are useful. That was exactly the goal.
  • Freak_NL 2 hours ago
    > We use cookies and similar technologies for analytics (Google Analytics) and session recording (Microsoft Clarity). Ads may be enabled in the future (Google AdSense). By continuing to use this site, you acknowledge this notice. You can manage cookies in your browser settings. EU/UK users: this serves as our cookie notice.

    No. Please just give me an option to reject all tracking cookies instead of just kicking me in the face with a done deal.

    Whoever wrote this 'EU/UK users: this serves as our cookie notice' is ignorant of the actual law. Have a look at:

    https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

    • yarlinghe 1 hour ago
      Fair point — you’re right to call this out. I’ve now removed Microsoft Clarity (no session recording/heatmaps), and GA4 is opt‑in with a real “Reject all” option (default off). This is already deployed.