In WG2 N4085 Further proposed additions to ISO/IEC 10646 and comments to other
proposals (2011‐
05‐25), the German NB had requested re WG2 N4022 Proposal to add Wingdings and
Webdings
Symbols besides other points:
Also, in doing this work, other fonts widespread on the computers of leading
On 15 July 2011 09:08, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote:
In supporting this, there is now a quick survey of symbol fonts regularly
delivered with computers
manufactured by Apple:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4127.pdf
I am agnostic on all the symbols, but would say a
On 7/15/2011 1:08 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
In WG2 N4085 Further proposed additions to ISO/IEC 10646 and comments to other
proposals (2011‐
05‐25), the German NB had requested re WG2 N4022 Proposal to add Wingdings and
Webdings
Symbols besides other points:
Also, in doing this work, other
Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 10:58 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
AF ... There appear to be a large number of symbols for which a
AF Unicode equivalent can be identified with great certainty -
AF and beyond that there seem to be characters for which such
AF an assignment is perhaps more tentative,
On 15 Jul 2011, at 09:47, Andrew West wrote:
I am agnostic on all the symbols, but would say a definite No to encoding
graphic clones of all the format (gc=Cf), space (gc=Zs) and separator
(gc=Zl|Zp) characters shown on pages 3, 8 and 9 of that
document. It is not necessary, and would set
I have web pages with lists of Unicode equivalents for Wingdings and Wingdings
2
characters, updated for Unicode 6. These equivalents were chosen by me, and
they are not in any way official Unicode mappings.
http://www.alanwood.net/demos/wingdings.html
On 2011/07/15 18:51, Michael Everson wrote:
On 15 Jul 2011, at 09:47, Andrew West wrote:
If you want a font to display a visible glyph for a format or space character
then you should just map the glyph to its character in the font, as many fonts
already do for certain format characters.
On 15 Jul 2011, at 13:36, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
If we take the needs of charaacter encoding experts when they write *about*
characters to decide what to make a character, then we get many too many
characters encoded.
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
On 15 July 2011 13:40, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument
about too many characters is not compelling, as there are only some
dozens of these
I'll try to arrange for an official corporate response to this document for the
next UTC, but informally, I note that the charts include a number of variants
of the Apple corporate logo, which Apple wants *not* to be encoded in any form.
Beyond this—and speaking purely for myself and not for
Andrew West andrewcwest at gmail dot com replied to Michael Everson:
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument
about too many characters is not compelling, as there are only some
dozens of these
Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 15:08 schrieb Andrew West:
AW I oppose encoding graphic clones of non-graphic characters ...
I am just waiting for the killer argument against the encoding of
chart symbols.
They are not clones, but characters by themselves, naming different entities
(invisible
On 7/15/2011 9:03 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Andrew Westandrewcwest at gmail dot com replied to Michael Everson:
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument
about too many characters is not compelling, as
On 15 Jul 2011, at 17:03, Doug Ewell wrote:
1. Graphic symbols for control characters are needed so writers can write
about the control characters themselves using plain text.
This does not seem so unreasonable. The RTL and LTR overrides *function* on the
text when inserted into text. So you
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
1. Graphic symbols for control characters are needed so writers can write
about the control characters themselves using plain text.
This does not seem so unreasonable. The RTL and LTR overrides *function* on
the text when inserted into
I'd assume that you could talk about it by referring to its name and/or code
point. A visible symbol for it would be new and would not be recognizable as
such.
Erkki
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org]
Puolesta Michael Everson
On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:37, Doug Ewell wrote:
Do people really need assigned characters (not just glyphs) to represent
these things, instead of just talking about them? I see text all the time
that refers to characters using the name of the character, or its U+ value,
or some informal name
On 7/15/2011 2:23 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 10:58 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
AF ... There appear to be a large number of symbols for which a
AF Unicode equivalent can be identified with great certainty -
AF and beyond that there seem to be characters for which such
AF
On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:50, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
I'd assume that you could talk about it by referring to its name and/or code
point. A visible symbol for it would be new and would not be recognizable as
such.
In the code charts it has a glyph. Without a SYMBOL FOR character for this
What I see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism.
Text about the Standard is important, and should be representable in an
interchangeable way. Here { } is a Right to left override character.
character. I want to talk about it in a way that is visible. Oops. I can't
On 7/15/2011 10:26 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
What I see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism. Text
about the Standard is important, and should be representable in an
interchangeable way. Here { } is a Right to left override character. character.
I want to talk about
On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:48, Asmus Freytag wrote:
You would serve this goal much better if, instead of rushing to simply add
raw data to the document pile, you had narrowed the issue down by limiting
this further to characters that need real scrutiny.
Your point was taken the first time. No
On 07/15/2011 01:37 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
How do I talk about U+2420 SYMBOL FOR SPACE in plain text? Other than
the way I just did, I mean.
This infinite recursion argument doesn't hold up. One can see the
need for a graphical representation (which does not mess with layout) of
characters
Look at Figures 8-1 through 8-4 in the Unicode Standard 5.0.
We see graphic characters shown, one representing space and two representing
joiners. This is plain text. This is something one might wish to put on a web
page or in an e-mail. One of the three characters is encoded.
Talking about
On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On 07/15/2011 01:37 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
How do I talk about U+2420 SYMBOL FOR SPACE in plain text? Other than
the way I just did, I mean.
This infinite recursion argument doesn't hold up.
Those of us old enough to recall IBM's old
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:04 PM, John W Kennedy jwke...@attglobal.net wrote:
Those of us old enough to recall IBM's old 6-bit BCDIC code (a retronym -- it
was known as BCD in its own day) will remember the overstricken b/
character used to represent the Substitute Blank character, the
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:03:38AM -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
Andrew West andrewcwest at gmail dot com replied to Michael Everson:
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument
about too many characters
On 2011-07-15, Leo Broukhis l...@mailcom.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:04 PM, John W Kennedy jwke...@attglobal.net
wrote:
Those of us old enough to recall IBM's old 6-bit BCDIC code (a retronym --
it was known as BCD in its own day) will remember the overstricken b/
character used
On 7/15/2011 11:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
Look at Figures 8-1 through 8-4 in the Unicode Standard 5.0.
We see graphic characters shown, one representing space and two representing joiners. This is plain text.
Bt. Thanks for playing! But the correct answer
On 7/15/2011 11:05 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
What I see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism. Text
about the Standard is important, and should be representable in an
interchangeable way. Here { } is a Right to left override character. character.
I want to talk about it
On 7/15/2011 11:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
However, I agree with Asmus that in the context of the Wingdings-type symbols
these characters should not be considered. They should be considered as a whole
on their own.
Thank you Michael.
To reiterate and restate (so it can be read out of
FYI: In BCD the Record Mark (A82) and the Group Mark (BA8421) were separate
control characters.
As shown, there should be no problem in representing their symbols in Unicode
plain text.
Erkki
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: unicode-bou...@unicode.org
--
Doug Ewell • d...@ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by ATT
-Original Message-
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
Sender: unicode-bou...@unicode.org
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:37:40
To: Michael Eversonever...@evertype.com; Unicode Mailing
Listunicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Quick
I apologize for the unintended content-free post. It's my phone's fault.
--
Doug Ewell • d...@ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by ATT
34 matches
Mail list logo
