Re: HEAVY EQUALS SIGN

2019-12-20 Thread Ken Whistler via Unicode


On 12/20/2019 7:17 AM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote:
It is indeed interesting that the Notice of Non-Approval itself uses 
italics for emphasis in two places.


That text, at the present time, cannot be expressed in Unicode plain 
text with the emphasis that the Notice of Non-Approval includes.


... which was /precisely /the point. I'm glad you noticed.

--Ken



Re: HEAVY EQUALS SIGN

2019-12-20 Thread wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode
On the matter of my document proposing using Variation Selector 14 for 
requesting an italic glyph for a letter, Unicode Inc. has also published 
a Notice of Non-Approval.


https://www.unicode.org/alloc/nonapprovals.html

It is indeed interesting that the Notice of Non-Approval itself uses 
italics for emphasis in two places.


That text, at the present time, cannot be expressed in Unicode plain 
text with the emphasis that the Notice of Non-Approval includes.


Readers of my two original documents on the topic may like to observe 
that I did not in any way suggest that the specialised italic characters 
for some mathematical uses are a precedent for the proposal that I 
submitted.


Here is a link to a PDF (Portable Document Format) document produced 
earlier today of a song that I wrote earlier this year that mentions 
italics.


http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/a_song_of_typography.pdf

I still consider that the proposal is a good idea, but the decision has 
been emphatically made, so I have moved on.


William Overington

Friday 20 December 2019



Re: HEAVY EQUALS SIGN

2019-12-18 Thread James Kass via Unicode




On 2019-12-18 12:42 PM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:

Unicode has a HEAVY PLUS SIGN (U+2795) and a HEAVY MINUS SIGN (U+2796).
I wonder, if a HEAVY EQUALS SIGN could complete that character set.
This would allow emoji phrases like  ➕= ❤️. (man plus cat equals
love) looking typographically better, when you replace the equals sign
with a new HEAVY EQUALS SIGN character. Thoughts?

Marius


 ➕  ⚌ ❤️



Re: HEAVY EQUALS SIGN

2019-12-18 Thread Fred Brennan via Unicode
On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 9:43:06 PM PST Joao S. O. Bueno via Unicode 
wrote:
> Maybe it would make more sense to try and check whether modification
> combining characters to shift the change the combined character into other
> weight/decoration/color and/or other character effects could be built, that
> could be used not only along emoji, but with all other characters.
> 
> Currently those transforms require the use of another text protocol, like
> HTML, or ANSI sequences for terminal, or even proprietary and add-hoc text
> file structures like Microsoft's .doc and .rtf (and other not that
> proprietary, but equally dependant on specific software to be proper
> rendered, like .ooxml and .odf).
> 
> Does anyone know if there is already an initiative like that? I'd like to
> know more about it.

There was a request like this, and it was first recommended for rejection by 
the Script Ad Hoc committee, and was then rejected by the Unicode Technical 
Committee. It wasn't for bold, it was for italic, but the reasons for its 
rejection apply broadly to bold, rotalic, etc.

The request was L2/19-063, “A proposal for encoding italics in plain text 
using Variation Selector 14,” by William Overington, submitted 2019-02-07.

Deborah Anderson, et al., recommended the request for rejection in L2/19-173, 
“Recommendations to UTC #159 April-May 2019 on Script Proposals”. In practice, 
although the UTC has the power to ignore their recommendation, they rarely 
ever do.

Overington tried to answer some of their concerns in L2/19-195, “Comments on 
comments about L2/19-063 Italics in Plain Text”.

His comments did not sway the UTC and the UTC rejected the request.
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19122.htm#159-C24

It's not worth writing another request for generic bold/italic in plaintext 
for any glyph in my humble opinion. The UTC and its subcommittees are opposed. 
I agree with them, so do many others.

Best,
Fred Brennan






Re: HEAVY EQUALS SIGN

2019-12-18 Thread Joao S. O. Bueno via Unicode
I think that as your object is emoji drawing, not mathematics, this request
can't
be justified that way.

Maybe it would make more sense to try and check whether modification
combining
characters to shift the change the combined character into other
weight/decoration/color and/or other
character effects could be built, that could be used not only along emoji,
but with all other characters.

Currently those transforms require the use of another text protocol, like
HTML, or ANSI sequences
for terminal, or even proprietary and add-hoc text file structures like
Microsoft's .doc and .rtf (and other
not that proprietary, but equally dependant on specific software to be
proper rendered, like .ooxml and .odf).

Since modificator characters for color and others have been tried and
tested in Unicode land for
some emojis, the ball to have in-unicode proper character transforms could
start to roll -

Does anyone know if there is already an initiative like that? I'd like to
know more about it.

(as for the O.P.: I think the way out for you now is to use an
out-of-unicode markup
to select a heavier-looking font for the `+` and `=` characters)

 js
   -><-




On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 09:42, Marius Spix via Unicode 
wrote:

> Unicode has a HEAVY PLUS SIGN (U+2795) and a HEAVY MINUS SIGN (U+2796).
> I wonder, if a HEAVY EQUALS SIGN could complete that character set.
> This would allow emoji phrases like  ➕= ❤️. (man plus cat equals
> love) looking typographically better, when you replace the equals sign
> with a new HEAVY EQUALS SIGN character. Thoughts?
>
> Marius
>