From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 20:47:54 CDT
Andrew West <andrewcwest at gmail dot com> wrote:
>> Sure. It's all over the place. But is it a character?
> Not yet.
That's not my criterion. As paradoxical as it may sound, an entity can
qualify as a "character" according to the Character-Glyph Model without
having been encoded (yet) in the Universal Character Set.
> But I personally think that the open/closed padlock symbols have as
> much right to be encoded as characters as any of the other members of
> the elite Miscellaneous Symbols block.
Some are worse than others: what is the case for encoding all 27 of the
symbols in the range U+2731 through U+274B? (Besides the laser printer,
> But, on the other hand, as Jukka and others have/will point out, most
> web designers will still use an image in preference to a coded
> character even if such symbols are encoded, because of limited font
> coverage; so some would argue that there is not much utility in
> encoding web symbols. I disagree, but can't think of a good
That's true for almost all newly encoded characters. It'll be a while
before you can assume most users have a font that supports N'Ko or
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 10 2006 - 20:53:56 CDT