Michael Everson wrote as follows.
At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote:
If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the
character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to 10646,
then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font with a
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
the name is simply a unique identifier within the std.
Well, the Standard is the authority for what is the meaning of the symbol
when found in a file of plain text. So if the symbol is in a plain text
file before or after the name of a person then the
William Overington WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk
wrote:
Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that
where a few characters added into an established block are accepted,
which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a
faster route than
William Overington wrote on 06/26/2003 06:24:44 AM:
the name is simply a unique identifier within the std.
Well, the Standard is the authority for what is the meaning of the
symbol
when found in a file of plain text. So if the symbol is in a plain text
file before or after the name
William Overington wrote on 06/26/2003 07:03:12 AM:
yet I am suggesting that where a
few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is
what
is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than
having
to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1.
Once both UTC
At 13:03 +0100 2003-06-26, William Overington wrote:
Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a
few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what
is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having
to wait for bulk
At 12:09 -0500 2003-06-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only meaning that the Standard implies is that the character encoded
at codepoint x represents they symbol of a wheelchair. It does not imply
*anything* about how its usage in juxtaposition with the name of a person
should be interpreted.
: Revised N2586R
At 12:09 -0500 2003-06-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only meaning that the Standard implies is that the character encoded
at codepoint x represents they symbol of a wheelchair. It does not imply
*anything* about how its usage in juxtaposition with the name of a person
Doug, Peter, and Michael already provided good responses to
this suggestion by William O, but here is a little further
clarification.
Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a
few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what
is
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/24/2003 04:54:30 AM:
This symbol [fleur-de-lis] is commonly found and used in some printed
books,
sometimes as a bullet-like character, but most often to terminate a
chapter or add fioritures near a title
Well, such examples are better than a sample showing a
Michael Everson wrote on 06/24/2003 05:52:09 AM:
Yes. Between the databases. For instance. Look, William, I' was
saying that for instance, an Arizona number plate
Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO
SYMBOL? My wife's from Arizona; I'll back that one.
-
William Overington wrote on 06/24/2003 05:32:56 AM:
In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not
unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a
FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693.
Bad idea. Bad William. No biscuit.
However, what is the correct
I am rather concerned that the name HANDICAPPED SIGN is being used without
any justification or discussion of the name of the character.
The Name Police approved. ;-)
I am rather concerned about the Orwellian nightmare possibilities of this
and believe that vigilance is a necessary activity to
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can
be used to represent a number of things.
In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on heraldic
crests, but can't recall seeing it in text.
I don't have access to
At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote:
If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the
character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to
10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font
with a glyph for the proposed character at the
Peter_Constable at sil dot org wrote:
William Overington wrote on 06/24/2003 05:32:56 AM:
In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem
not unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts
having a FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693.
Bad idea. Bad William. No
Speaking of Orwellian nightmare scenarios, I don't get this reference. I
read Homage to Catalonia, but could someone please explain this Orwellian
nightmare? I can't figure out, what does the Spanish civil war have to do
with Unicode?
Yer ol' pal,
Youtie
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:11 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote:
If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the
character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to
10646, then I don't see any
At 09:17 AM 6/25/2003, Youtie Effaight wrote:
Speaking of Orwellian nightmare scenarios, I don't get this reference. I
read Homage to Catalonia, but could someone please explain this
Orwellian nightmare? I can't figure out, what does the Spanish civil war
have to do with Unicode?
I missed the
At 00:56 -0500 2003-06-25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson wrote on 06/24/2003 05:52:09 AM:
Yes. Between the databases. For instance. Look, William, I' was
saying that for instance, an Arizona number plate
Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO
SYMBOL? My
Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO
SYMBOL? My wife's from Arizona; I'll back that one.
Recte SAGUARO. I lived in Tucson from junior high to my B.A. I guess
I would propose one if it were, as the SHAMROCK is, used to indicate
something in lexicography or
William Overington wrote on 06/25/2003 06:26:25 AM:
Well, I realize that what I say may, at first glance, possibly appear
extreme at times, yet please do consider what I write in an objective
manner. If Unicode has a WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL then that is a symbol, if
Unicode encodes a HANDICAPPED
Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM:
We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have,
as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have
such a map here in the house.
But just because a symbol appears on maps, does that mean it should be
encoded as a character?
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM:
Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a
well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of
things.
In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on
At 00:41 -0500 2003-06-24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM:
We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have,
as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have
such a map here in the house.
But just because a symbol appears on maps, does
Michael Everson wrote as follows.
I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case and
the five characters were accepted.
This raises an interesting matter.
In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not
unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to
At 11:32 +0100 2003-06-24, William Overington wrote:
It appears to me that there should be some system devised so that
when a few extra symbols are accepted into an already established
area that those characters can be implemented in a proper manner
much more quickly than at present.
No. The
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regarding the last, one may note with some alarm
http://www.spiralnature.com/entertain/wheelchair.html
Seriously, it seems that the HANDICAPPED /
DISABLED/ WHEELCHAIR SIGN may be copyright in some countries.
Please see
At 13:09 +0100 2003-06-24, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Seriously, it seems that the HANDICAPPED /
DISABLED/ WHEELCHAIR SIGN may be copyright in some countries.
Your point?
Please see
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp1/newdocs/wp19925.pdf where
this is mentioned.
I do not think that it is in
U+2668 HOT SPRINGS is pleasant, but it's a lot less motivated -- to my mind --
than the DO NOT LITTER SIGN.
Huh? The Hotspring sign appears in running text all the time -- in
Japanese travel brochures, for example. I've never seen the do-not-litter
sign in running text like that.
William O wrote...
In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not
unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a
FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693.
Not quite yet. It's not that stable. You should look at the WG2 processes
and stages of encoding.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:30 PM, Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
U+2668 HOT SPRINGS is pleasant, but it's a lot less motivated -- to
my mind -- than the DO NOT LITTER SIGN.
Huh? The Hotspring sign appears in running text all the time -- in
Japanese travel brochures, for example.
It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were
available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in
a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference. It would be similar to
these kinds of samples if I were to create a proposal using as a sample
Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Revised N2586R
It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were
available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in
a dictionary
At 01:07 -0500 2003-06-23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were
available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in
a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference.
Possibly, but there is only so much time in the
On Monday, June 23, 2003 2:54 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph
that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think
we'd want to encode the US flag as a character.
That would be a logo.
Most
At 14:03 -0400 2003-06-23, John M. Fiscella wrote:
And don't forget the 'radura'. The radura is to the food industry as
the 'biohazard' is to medical industry.
Jeepers.
Yet the comments on proposing the radura by various UTC members were
negative. And it isn't a logo.
As a point of interest there does not seem to be a single
standardized HALAL SYMBOL though there is rather a lot of discussion
about having one. I googled halal logo.
I also looked for pork logo. Not much turned up, though there was a
PDF from the Irish Bord Bia (Food Board) which mentioned
And don't forget the 'radura'. The radura is to the food industry as the
'biohazard' is to medical industry. Yet the comments on proposing the
radura by various UTC members were negative. And it isn't a logo.
Interesting. I haven't noticed this symbol in use, and I do buy food. And
none of
On Monday, June 23, 2003 10:17 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a NUT SYMBOL used to warn that products
contain nuts, though there are many, many references to Sainsbury's
(a British supermarket chain) labelling their peanuts Warning:
Contains Nuts.
What
According to http://www.fas.usda.gov/GainFiles/200010/30678316.pdf,
Indonesia requires the radura in packaging. Apparently, it also
requires some sort of pig-logo to warn if a product contains swine
derivatives.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 23:33 +0200 2003-06-23, Philippe Verdy wrote:
What about the many symbols used to signal how clothes can be cleaned,
A well-defined semantic set that I think deserves encoding. :-)
or various warning signs on some products to signal the presence of
a potentially dangerous component, or some
At 23:33 +0200 2003-06-23, Philippe Verdy wrote:
What about the many symbols used to signal how clothes can be cleaned,
And Michael Everson responded:
A well-defined semantic set that I think deserves encoding. :-)
If what you mean is:
http://www.waschsymbole.de/en/index.html
then some
And how about:
http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2
670,00.html
http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2
669,00.html
http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2
668,00.html
- Chris
At 14:13 +0200 2003-06-22, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
There was some sort of corruption with the pictures in the version of
N2586 which was on the server. It has thus been replaced with:
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2586r.pdf
Best regards
Keld
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography
45 matches
Mail list logo
