From: JFC Morfin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 14 2006 - 04:04:43 CDT
this seems related to the understanding of what is a grapheme.
Also to ISO 7000 (too expensive for me to have a look at)?
At 22:56 12/08/2006, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>>Not sure about this: it seems that these open/closed padlock
>>symbols are not technology neutral, and have applications only on
>>the web or computing terminals connected securely to remote sites
>>through unsecure networks. Would you find it elsewhere, for example
>>in printed books or papers or in PDF, except for documenting
>>websites or in the GUI of some terminal emulation software?
>Perhaps not. But there are plenty of characters in the U+23xx block
>("Miscellaneous Technical") that are specific to user interfaces and
>other computer applications. Some were part of Unicode 1.0, but
>others were added in versions 3.0 and 3.2, under the present-day
>>Well, the symbols for this function are not necessarily showing a
>>padlock ("cadenas" in French), we also find the glyph for only an
>>old metallic key (complete or broken), or sometimes a numbered
>>rotating button (like on strongboxes), or a strongbox with an
>>open/closed door. Over time, the browsers have changed the visual
>>association of what is really a visual indicator part of the GUI,
>>and there may be some browsers that use other clues so I'm not sure
>>it is really a standard for the function.
>Indeed, alternative glyphs may exist for this entity. This hardly
>proves that the entity is not a character.
>>So if the characters had to be encoded, I'm not sure that it would
>>persist with this association, and so it would only remain the
>>glyph which only represents the physical object itself. But given
>>that various glyphs are already used, how many symbols to encode?
>>It may even happen that in some future some hardware security tool
>>may become standard and have a better technological background, so
>>that web and GUI authors may want to adopt this symbol for its
>>related stronger security, possibly associated to a newer security
>>standard replacing HTTPS in some future and with which it would be
>>desirable to give users a visual distinction (for example the form
>>of the chip contacts on bank/credit/debit smartcards, or the logo
>>of a newer international security standard).
>We have U+239A CLEAR SCREEN SYMBOL even though the clear-screen
>function is associated with terminals which many members of this
>list consider hopelessly obsolete.
>Better names for the closed and open padlock might be SECURED SYMBOL
>and UNSECURED SYMBOL.
>I'm open to arguments that these two entities are not really
>characters, but the argument that the preferred glyphs might change
>in the future doesn't convince me.
>Fullerton, California, USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 14 2006 - 04:51:02 CDT