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 characters in this case). Thus, the "chart symbol" characters are clearly distinctive of the invisible characters they name. U+240A SYMBOL FOR LINE FEED is no line feed character and has no different line breaking behavior as any other symbol character. The chart symbols are perfect characters in the way that they have concise semantics, a well defined glyph spectrum, and appear in plain text (e.g. discussions of the invisible characters they name). Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 14:36 schrieb Martin J. Dürst: MJD> I understand the need. But then what happens is that we need a picture MJD> in the standard for "the character that depicts an RLO (but isn't MJD> actually one)". And then you need another character to show that MJD> picture, and so on ad infinitum. No, this is a sophism and not a real-world argument. The chart symbols are visible characters like e.g. any Latin letters. Nobody until now has proposed any character symbolizing a clearly visible and identifiable character, such as "Symbol for Latin Capital A". If in fact somebody proposes such, this would be a completely different topic, and the arguments to do such (if in fact any are found) will also be completely different. - Karl
