Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> I don't doubt that it shouldn't be in Unicode (because of the 'personal
> character' reason that Joan Aliprand mentioned), or that it is a logo.
> But it's also a character, isn't it? The guy claims it's his name, with
> the intention that it should be in text.
> I suppose this is drifting off-topic, but I'm fascinated by the
> semantics of the situation. What is a name? In many parts of the world,
> one's name is whatever you call yourself, though perhaps implied in
> that is that one's name is equivalent to its representation in the
> local alphabet and perhaps local phonetics.
I agree that SYMBOL FOR TAFKAP doesn't need to be in Unicode (although I
enjoyed Marco's canonical decomposition), especially since he claims it
has no pronunciation. But Ashley makes a good point, particularly in
light of the Chinese groups that claim Unicode is "incomplete" because
it doesn't have code points for logographic characters that appear only
in less-common personal names.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT