On 4/20/2025 12:12 PM, Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
*From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@corp.unicode.org] *On Behalf Of
*Asmus Freytag via Unicode
*Sent:* Sunday, 20 April 2025 20:25
*To:* unicode@corp.unicode.org
*Subject:* Re: Recycling symbols
On 4/20/2025 12:43 AM, Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote:
Seems like writing proposal is harder than I thought :)
Yes. it's a bit of work, but remember, once a character is encoded, it
is forever. That means that it is worthwhile to spend a bit of time at
the start to get it right. Even if that can be a bit frustrating.
It is not only frustrating - I cannot create glyphs. I can only create
(maybe sufficient) justification for adding such symbols :)
I wouldn't worry, at this stage, about being able to create glyphs.
Because they are variations of existing glyphs, that part of the process
is easily managed -- once there's a decision made that the justification
is compelling. So, focus on that. (For illustration, the samples from
Wikipedia are a good stand-in).
In some cases, the version you cite is the original edition from 1994.
However, the notes indicate that some revisions took place in 2018.
Changing from original version to version with all revisions
incorporated is only one click away :)
No, you don't get to tell reviewers to "click through". All URLs must be
to the final document you are citing (and if you'd like to cite the
overview page, that is a separate reference).
Your task goes beyond collecting a bibliography like this. You need to
cite individual passages, with images as appropriate. If you can, it
would be appropriate to show some examples where these appear in
print, not just embossed in the container. This serves two purposes:
to document that these can be considered "text" and that there is
evidence that the regulation is effective.
This symbols appears on most labels in EU. It should appear on all
labels, though, as it is required by law.
Maybe, if using such symbols be less cumbersome (without requirement
of mixing graphic with text), such symbols would be used more frequently?
Most frequently, labels contains two symbols: one for foil (or similar
package, so plastic - from Unicode), and second is for label (mainly
paper - outside Unicode).
Next week I can collect some product packages/labels photos. But
still, I would not create glyphs…
See above wrt glyphs.
Visual attestation is key. And for the regulatory documents, any passage
that you think is important to reviewers must be excerpted (with a link
to its source). The proposal must be readable without accessing the
references.
I thing best solution would be only "triangle" with digits, no abbreviation
(it can be added using normal letters). And best of best, as "combining
recycling triangle", if such combining is possible (probably it is not
possible).
Finally, you need to address the issue of what should be encoded in
plain text.
Two digits number inside recycling triangle. Not 'description' -
although description (e.g. ALU) is also standarized by law, and is
same for all EU countries (language independent), it can be easily
added below triangle (as text in line below triangle).
Currently, Unicode contains only recycling plastics; so it seems like
half-way. If none symbols would exists in Unicode, it would be OK. But
if some already exists, why not all recycling symbols defined by law,
and only plastic?
Difference in regulatory body, perhaps? The first sub-set was
standardized in the US first ?
Never mind that, just give a clear description of the regulatory
environment (today), how stable it has been (how long) and what it
covers - then provide evidence that people are creating *text* with
these symbols. Traffic signs are also regulated, but generally, they are
not used in text.
I would also like to add all symbols from ISO 7000 (IEC 60417),
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:pub:PUB400008:en , as they are created
for use in user manuals, and all user interface (physical as e.g.
buttons, controls, or display), etc.. If you check your's car manual,
you will find many symbols from this standard in it :) But this is
another story.
Again, you will need to demonstrate that they are used in a way that
isn't the same as just putting an image into running text.
And some UI symbols have been encoded, but mainly because they are so
widely used and not limited to user manuals.
Remember: evidence for use in text - preferably widely used.
Pick any subset that you can get good evidence for, and if it's a
somewhat logical subset, ask for that. If you try to go for all, you'll
never get there.
A./
