Re: Draft 3 of the proposal to encode an EXTERNAL LINK SIGN in the BMP

From: Petr Tomasek (
Date: Tue Aug 08 2006 - 10:16:43 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Draft 3 of the proposal to encode an EXTERNAL LINK SIGN in the BMP"

    On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Andrew West wrote:
    > On 07/08/06, Michael Everson <> wrote:
    > >
    > >I have been proposing symbols piece-meal for years. It would be
    > >pleasant if it were not as difficult as it has been. Many of the
    > >symbols we have encoded were put there not because of any particular
    > >utility, but because they were inherited from other character sets.
    > >There are gaps which could (and should) be filled.
    > >
    > I agree with Michael on this. Unicode now has quite a large set of
    > symbols that many people find very useful; but there are still many
    > common symbols that it would be useful to encode as characters, even
    > if there is not clear evidence of their use in a plain text context.
    > Andrew

    I agree. Actually there are several symbols in unicode, that lack
    their counterparts, so it would be nice either have none or all of them.

    For example: there is:

    and even

    but no sign for fax, cellular phone or email.

    Or you have U+2709 ENVELOPE, but what about "open envelope"? etc.


    Petr Tomasek <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 08 2006 - 10:43:09 CDT