Le 12/02/2020 à 20:38, Marius Spix a écrit :
That is a pretty interesting finding. This glyph was not part of

It is, as *U+1355A EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A-12-051

but has been first seen in

The only "evidence" for this glyph I could find, is a stock photo,
which is clearly made in the 21th century.
I don’t even think it could qualify, since I think the woman in this picture would correspond to another hieroglyph, from the B series (B-04), not a A-12.

I know, that some font creators include so-called trap characters,
similar to trap streets which are often found in maps to catch copyright
violations. But it is also possible that the someone wanted to smuggle
an easter-egg into Unicode or just test if the quality assurance works.

The question is then: was this well known about people reading hieroglyphs who checked this proposal? If not, it is very difficult to trust other hieroglyphs, especially if the first explanation is the good one: some trap characters could actually look like real ones. Except of course if we accept some hieroglyphs for compatibility purpose, but this is not mentioned as a valid reason in any propoal yet.

In my opinion, this is an invalid character, which should not be
included in Unicode.

I agree.


On Thu, 12 Feb 2020 19:12:14 +0100
Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:

Dear Unicode list members (CC Michel Suignard),

    the Unicode proposal L2/20-068
“Revised draft for the encoding of an extended Egyptian Hieroglyphs
repertoire, Groups A to N” (
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20068-n5128-ext-hieroglyph.pdf ) by
Michel Suignard contains a very interesting hieroglyph at position
*U+13579 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A-12-054, which seems to represent a man
with a laptop, as can be obvious in the attached image.

    I am curious about the source of this hieroglyph: in the table
acompannying the document, its sources are said to be “Hieroglyphica
extension (various sources)” with number A58C and “Hornung & Schenkel
(2007, last modified in 2015)”, but with no number (A;), which seems
unique in the table. It leads me to think this glyph only exist in
some modern font, either as a joke, or for some computer related
modern use. Can anyone infirm or confirm this intuition ?


Reply via email to