From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2007 - 21:44:53 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote to Michael Everson,
>> At 11:34 -0500 2007-09-29, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> >So before this thread is stopped. Who is going to write the proposal
>> >to encode <><?
>> See U+1319F in FPDAM5
>This contradicts your own statement in the N3237 document signed by you for
>justifying the encoding of the new Egyptian Hieroglyphs block:
>10a. Can any of the proposed character(s) be considered to be similar (in
>appearance or function) to an existing character?
>No. There is no question of unifying Egyptian Hieroglyphs with other scripts
>or symbols. U+2625 ANKH is not the same character as
>EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH S034, despite the origin of the former in the latter.
This isn't really a contradiction at all.
It should be unacceptable to attempt to unify selected characters
from a writing system with look-alike symbols (or with similar
appearing letters from other writing systems) already encoded.
However, there's nothing wrong with using a pictograph from
the Egyptian set (or any other set) as a representation of the
symbolism you are trying to convey.
In the absence of a devoted character for CHRISTIAN FISH SYMBOL,
if Christians who currently use the ASCII string "<><" instead adopted
the hieroglyphic pictogram of a fish as a convention for plain text
exchange, everyone would still get the idea.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 29 2007 - 21:48:59 CDT