KW> As *characters*? Why?
Partly because they are used in contexts that might allow interpreting
them as characters (for example, used to signify languages, to
signify nationalities of delegates at conferences in conference
papers or to signify countries in soccer match statistics :-)).
I'm not saying they *are* characters, just that it's worth thinking
about it. If I had genuine evidence for them being characters, I'd
propose them formally.
KW> What is this bug that people catch, which induces them to consider
KW> all things semiological to be, ipso facto, abstract characters
KW> suitable for encoding in Unicode?
In the mail to which you're answering, I dimly recall writing
>> The most obvious and simple example for glyph colours with semantic
>> meaning that I can think of...
I wanted to mention something I considered a pretty good "example for
glyph colours with semantic meaning". That's all. You're slightly
overreacting when you talk about people catching bugs here. If I
wanted to have flag characters in Unicode, I'd probably write a
summery about flag character use in electronic communication and
propose the whole bit, risking it being rejected as opposed to risking
being snarled at on this mailing list for mentioning them.
(And in a standard that has bothered to allocate Zapf Dingbats because
it's present in a lot of laser printers, "all things semiological" is
a bit of a broad measure)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 13:10:18 EDT