From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 17:10:02 CDT
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:
>
> U+2121 TELEPHONE SIGN
> U+260E BLACK TELEPHONE
> U+260F WHITE TELEPHONE
> and even
> 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.
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 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 10 2006 - 17:19:43 CDT