From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 14:04:18 EST
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin <antonio at tuvalkin dot web dot pt> wrote:
>> In every large-font rendering of Morse dots and dashes I have ever
>> seen, the dot is round and the dash has square corners.
> Hm, but is that good? I'm sure I'd typeset Morse dot with a square
> if I ever had one.
These are typographical preferences, though, and don't indicate a need
for special MORSE DOT and MORSE DASH characters.
For those who are wondering how I can argue that the typography of Morse
dots and dashes isn't a Unicode problem, and at the same time argue that
Plane 14 tags may be useful for Japanese/Chinese preferred-glyph
selection (among many other things), my response is this:
It is almost certainly true, as many experts on this list have said,
that Japanese/Chinese glyph differences are minor enough to fall under
the heading of normal glyph variations. But there are apparently some
users -- enough to make a difference in what gets deployed -- who FEEL
it is more than that, and use it to fight against the use of Unicode.
Plain-text tagging could provide a (not quite perfect) solution to this
perceived problem and remove an obstacle to the spread of Unicode.
AFAIK, nobody is refusing to use Unicode and writing on mailing lists
and newsgroups that "Unicode is not usable" because of disagreements or
inadequacies in the way Morse Code dots and dashes are encoded or
>> Pardon the flame,
> Was this a flame? :-)
No, the next part was what I thought might be considered inflammatory:
>> there is no need to add characters to Unicode so that Morse code
>> dots and dashes can be rendered in a "visually more pleasing" way.
>> C'mon already.
But since you do not disagree, I guess there isn't a problem after all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 14:50:37 EST