From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2007 - 14:20:42 CST
Thanks Philippe. I wasn't looking for a lecture on how to use the
internet. I'm also not making a proposal to encode these characters,
merely pointing out that from my *personal* observation, they certainly
appear to be able to claim to be symbols used in text. (One of my
earlier posts seemed to say the opposite, because of a missing 'not' -
sorry to all that came to agree).
On 10/2/2007 11:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> You may find them online, but using non-encoded forms:
> * may be using specific embedded fonts referencing some private usage
> encoding relative to that specific font.
> * in HTML pages where they could be currently substituted every as images
> (possibly with the help of CSS styles to avoid making complicated references
> to them through an image element with an attribute and an URI)
> * as embedded SVG objects within XML data (later referended with a <svg
> use="#ref"/> element.
> * in PDF documents (everything is a graphic object, including the rest of
> the text which is encoded in its rendered form as a set of graphic drawing
> * in scanned pages of publications
> All these uses will be difficult to find through standard search engines
> that don't know how they are represented (there's currently no good way to
> look for graphics in the web without the help of metadata for indexing
> May be a search for images whose description contains the "fish" word could
> help find some of these documents: we could first search for matching glyphs
> and then we can look for other documents which intend to embed them this
> way, if there's a searchable index of external references (Google may
> perform this type of searches, i.e. looking for documents that make external
> references to the URL of an image).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 02 2007 - 14:23:17 CST