Date: Sun Oct 19 2008 - 18:39:41 CDT
Quoting "Leo Broukhis" <email@example.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Doug Ewell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Historically the Unicode Standard has had a policy against logos of this
>> sort, Christian crosses and Stars of David notwithstanding. Commitment to
>> the policy has become less clear in recent years (IMHO) with entities like a
>> flag representing "Japanese self-defense forces" being accepted as part of
>> the ARIB Japanese TV symbols proposal (which also includes several traffic
>> signs, once a canonical example of what would *not* be encoded).
> Well, "the addition of these new characters should be seen as the
> start of a new initiative to add more symbols in the standard". One
> can claim that the characters resembling traffic signs are rather
> traffic report symbols or ideograms for maps, tourist guides, etc.,
> making them somewhat more suitable and useful; the right-hand side
> driving counterparts of U+26D5-26D9 should be encoded as well, then.
> The 26FF (JSDF flag) is named generically and can be used generically
> as a "distinctive flag"; to me more surprising is the canonical name
> of U+26F3 containing "Japanese".
The ARIB collection is somewhat of a legacy type matter, and new
encoding for this type of reason should be fewer and fewer over the
coming years. However it has opened the door ( or a "can of worms"
depending on your point of view), for more symbols to be put on the
The soccer ball is an example of the type of symbol we can expect to
see more of over the next few years.
>> However, it certainly seems likely that encoding the Olympic Rings symbol as
>> a character without the involvement of the IOC would be a huge mistake.
> Maybe someone should ask them.
Whilst of course anyway can suggest any symbol - the close
relationship between the IOC and the Olympic Rings symbol, shows way
it would not be encoded. A symbol who inclusion not only in the
unicode standard, in a font file and even in a document, is subject to
a latge number of restrictions is not acceptable for a public
standard. Other logo, such as the apple symbol are excluded for just
such a reason.
However asking the IOC to suggest the Olympic Rings symbol so that it
could then be rejected would not IMHO be very productive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 19 2008 - 18:43:34 CDT