From: Christopher Fynn (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2008 - 23:57:22 CST
Asmus Freytag <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> If the symbol has recognizable
> shape and is used in regular (text) interchange between writer and
> reader it it subject to encoding.
> In other words, the symbol clearly has some sort of conventional meaning
> (even if the character encoder doesn't know them or all of them at the
> start) and it is possible to draw a rough line that designates what
> acceptable ordinary (as well as fancy) glyph variations might be. Those
> are the very practical questions that have to be resolved when actually
> encoding something.
Go to the children's section of your public library. There you should
be able to find any number of children's books (=examples) where
pictographs are substituted for some of the words in sentances. Since
the meaning of these symbols is clearly obvious to almost any five or
six year old (=conventional meaning), and these symbols occur in text,
are they candidates for encoding?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST