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

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 17:10:02 CDT

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

    Petr Tomasek <tomasek at etf dot cuni dot cz> wrote:

    > ... 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.

    Several years ago I suggested (but didn't propose) a pair of symbols
    which might be called CLOSED PADLOCK and OPEN PADLOCK. These are
    commonly used to indicate, respectively, a secure and non-secure
    connection or status (the latter in cases where security might be
    expected or assumed). For example, the closed-lock symbol is often seen
    in Web browsers to indicate an https: connection, and on pages to show
    that a given link leads to a secure site.

    I didn't follow through on these because the clear guideline at the time
    was that symbols had to be used "as part of" running text, as opposed to
    "adjacent to" running text, and I couldn't find enough evidence for
    these two symbols. I will be interested to see if the guideline is
    changing, so I can decide whether to reconsider proposing them. There
    are certainly many symbols in Unicode that do not meet the guideline as
    it was explained to me.

    Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California, USA

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 10 2006 - 17:19:43 CDT