From: Petr Tomasek (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 08 2006 - 10:16:43 CDT
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Andrew West wrote:
> On 07/08/06, Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
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:
U+2121 TELEPHONE SIGN
U+260E BLACK TELEPHONE
U+260F WHITE TELEPHONE
U+2706 TELEPHONE LOCATION SIGN
but no sign for fax, cellular phone or email.
Or you have U+2709 ENVELOPE, but what about "open envelope"? etc.
-- Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 08 2006 - 10:43:09 CDT