Note that Han Unification has a history predating Unicode, and the Unicode work very much followed on from that.

The most notable is CCCII, developed in Taiwan in the early 80s, and then standardised in various places.

That's not to say that it hasn't been controversial (it has!), nor to say that it hasn't caused problems (it has!), but it's also unfair to say that it's just Unicode doing its own special thing.

In the US case specifically, I always wonder how much of the benefit is just “here’s a free appointment with a doctor once a year”.

It’s maybe got slightly more extreme recently, with an even larger percentage of them being inscrutable to me as someone who both works in tech and has a decent grasp of current industry trends.

I’ve never really got it — if even I don’t know what you’re advertising (or often, who is advertising!), how does this help your sales?

The most obvious case is something like adding a Reviewed-By/Signed-off-by trailer based on reviewers, but there’s also a decent number of big projects that want more semantically meaningful commit identifiers (think more revision, in a numeric sense).

It seems like making merges async should make it a lot more possible to implement that!

There’s enough ways you can match up commits, with plenty of prior art in this space.

An obvious example is web browsers, where a vulnerability can easily be uninteresting because it lives in a sandboxed process… until you find a sandbox escape, then it is critical.

As long as you suspect there may be other vulnerabilities in the other layers, it is worthwhile investigating and fixing them, because defence in depth only works until someone manages to put together a full chain.

Personally, I find it somewhat less effective on larger screens, simply because my eyes are more likely to be further from the dots.

> illegal values, or values with illegal parts, are treated as if the declaration weren't there at all

So a conforming implementation would ignore that max-width property declaration, not raise an error.

And those earlier versions of ePub which defined a required subset of given CSS standards? The forwards-compatible parsing rules were part of their subset.

PDF is not somehow immune to this either — a non-conforming implementation could similarly break what are meant to be forward-compatible extension points by raising an error on an unknown stream or object instead of (as required by the standard) ignoring it.

And I know a lot of that lies on the vendors, but it does feel unfortunate (from a standardisation/conformance/certification point of view) that Windows requiring it doesn’t make it easy to boot other OSes!