From: Christopher Fynn (chris.fynn@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 04:21:48 CST
On 11/01/2009, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
>
>> How about hand-shapes like those at:
>> <http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/projekte/hamnosys/handformen/handformen.html>,
>> <http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/projekte/hamnosys/hamnosyserklaerungen/englisch/04handshapes.html>
>> which have semantic meaning in sign language, those used in manual
>> alphabets <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_alphabet>, or the
>> traditional had gestures (mudrā) used in traditional Indian dance and
>> ritual which have long established and well documented semantic meaning?
> What their meaning is isn't too important. If someone thinks that there is
> enough interchange to warrant encoding in the UCS, they can certainly submit
> a proposal to encode them.
> Of course, in some particular cases there may be questions of unification
> with already-encoded characters or of possible rejection on the grounds that
> a symbol is no more than a cipher-presentation of some already-encoded
> character.
For this reason I would like to see the proposed Hand Signals emoji
(e-B93-eBA1), not unified with already encoded characters, encoded
together in a block with sufficient space left to accommodate the
basic hand signs used in sign language, manual alphabets, and Indian
dance, ritual and iconography as well. Since there is a great deal of
overlap between all these sets of hand signs I think sufficient space
should be allocated so that they can be encoded together.
- Chris
> Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 04:23:19 CST