Re: Revised N2586R

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 08:54:13 EDT

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: [ot] anyone know of a good "sending accessible emails" guideline page?"

    At 01:07 -0500 2003-06-23, wrote:
    >It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were
    >available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in
    >a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference.

    Possibly, but there is only so much time in the day, and I certainly
    did a better job than Mark Davis did with L2/02-361. >:-(

    (UTC, please take this as a formal protest at the action taken to
    approve the addition of characters based on a document as flimsy as
    that one. Bad UTC. No biscuit!)

    >It would be similar to these kinds of samples if I were to create a
    >proposal using as a sample the Phonetic Symbol Guide, but that might
    >not clearly show if a character was something that was merely
    >proposed by someone at one time but never actually used -- in such a
    >case, taking a sample from Phonetic Symbol Guide does not really
    >demonstrate the need to encode as a character for
    >text representation.

    I tend to disagree. Symbols have a very different nature than
    phonetic characters do. We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have,
    as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have
    such a map here in the house. Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a
    well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of

    >Likewise, the sample for (e.g.) the fleur-de-lis doesn't really
    >provide a case that this should be a character to facilitate
    >representation in text.

    Of course these can be considered to be dingbats, as many symbols
    are. When I look at the set of dingbats and symbols in the Standard,
    I find that there some odd omissions. The gender symbols for instance
    that I proposed in N2587, and a set of religious symbols which I'm
    preparing in another document. More dictionary symbols like the
    SHAMROCK. And so on.

    >It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph
    >that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think
    >we'd want to encode the US flag as a character.

    That would be a logo.

    >I'm not saying that I oppose the proposed characters; just that samples of
    >a different nature would make for a stronger case.

    I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case
    and the five characters were accepted.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 09:40:18 EDT