Pd: Odp: RE: What to do if a legacy compatibility character is defective?

[piotrunio-2...@wp.pl via Unicode]

How is it a “proper explanation,” to claim that 'No evidence of a document 
that would make a distinction between the corresponding characters in the 
different code pages was provided.', when the proposal already thoroughly 
explains the distinction?   How is it a “proper explanation,” to claim that 
'The document is making glyph distinctions, while the Unicode standard is 
based on character identities.' when the proposal already clearly explains 
how the legacy characters differ in their fundamental identity from their 
Unicode counterparts?   How is it a “proper explanation,” to make a claim that 
the issues 'can be solved by using appropriate fonts' when the proposal 
already makes it clear that they can't?   I don't see any logic in that 
response.   Dnia 24 października 2025 22:17 Doug Ewell via Unicode 
<unicode@corp.unicode.org> napisał(a):  piotrunio-2...@wp.pl wrote:   The 
response to this proposal in L2/25-010 is fundamentally logically  incorrect 
and does not provide any feedback whatsoever.   Here is the Script Encoding 
Working Group’s response to Piotr’s proposal, in its entirety:   “We received a 
proposal requesting a disunification of some of the legacy computing box 
drawing characters. The proposal seeks encoding a character that is one pixel 
different from U+1CE2B LARGE TYPE PIECE DIAGONAL UPPER RIGHT, and encoding 26 
characters of box drawing lines for PETSCII and Apple II whose glyphs differ in 
thickness from the characters already encoded in the Symbols For Legacy 
Computing and Box Drawing blocks.   “We deem the differences demonstrated in 
the proposal to not constitute differences in plain text. No evidence of a 
document that would make a distinction between the corresponding characters in 
the different code pages was provided.   “The request appears to come from a 
misunderstanding of the standard. The document is making glyph distinctions, 
while the Unicode standard is based on character identities. It is not a goal 
of the standard to harmonize PETSCII and Apple II code pages. The issues raised 
in the proposals can be solved by using appropriate fonts and as such no action 
is recommended to be taken.”   If there is no “feedback,” it is because SEW 
essentially rejected the proposal on its premise.   In that response, terms 
like 'differences in plain text', 'glyph  distinctions', 
'character identities' or 'appropriate fonts' are  thrown 
around as buzzwords, completely defying all logic.   Uh, OK.   SEW is the body 
responsible for evaluating all non-Han encoding proposals. They probably know a 
thing or two about plain text and glyph distinctions and such.   My take is 
that Piotr did indeed receive a “proper explanation,” just not the one he 
wanted.   The assumption that the SEW 'probably know a thing or two about 
plain text and glyph distinctions and such' is an appeal to authority 
fallacy. I'm not the kind of type designer that worships authorities. 
I'm more of an independently thinking type designer, so I need the 
arguments to be more specific. I would rather get reasonable logical arguments 
as to why specifically light box drawings are supposedly equivalent to 1÷8 
blocks, or why 1÷4 block thickness in C64 is equivalent to 1÷8 blocks in 
Unicode, etc. not some vague claims that they do 'not constitute 
differences in plain text'. Otherwise, what's stopping the SEW from 
claiming that any non-Han proposed character is no different from some random 
encoded character and rejecting any proposals on their premise?   --  Doug 
Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org