&gt; <i>so well embedded in all operating systems and programming languages that this is not the problem.</i><p>It&#x27;s not the &quot;enabling&quot; of Unicode that&#x27;s problematic, it&#x27;s the features of more exotic Unicode codepoints that aren&#x27;t correctly supported by many programs in all major operating systems, because they weren&#x27;t designed with these features in mind.<p>Tell me, can you copy&#x2F;paste the &quot;𖥶&quot; character with the mouse after double-clicking it in your browser? It&#x27;s a letter - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;unicode-table.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;16976&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;unicode-table.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;16976&#x2F;</a>, so it should IMO be treated like a quoted word (correct me if I&#x27;m wrong). Safari on OS X selects either the quote and the letter or just the right quote depending on where exactly on the letter I double click. Safari&#x2F;Webkit is relatively modern and well-maintained too. Unicode &quot;supported&quot;? Sure. Working well? Nope, just for a few common use cases.