From: Leo Broukhis (leob@mailcom.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 13:31:39 CST
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Leo Broukhis <leob@mailcom.com> wrote:
>> Then each *alleged* symbol should be considered separately, with a
>> separate corpus of evidence of its symbolic use.
>
> What a wasteful and unprecedented procedure. They're a set of symbols
> and should be considered as such. There's plenty of opportunity as it
> stands to object to specific characters or groups of characters, but
> no need to fight over every character.
I see two distinct points of view. One is "we want to encode an
allowed subset of a set of emoji" (minus logos, minus glyph-unified
characters - that demonstrates that emoji are not a writing system) -
it which case the question is, if PUAs will still be needed, what's
the qualitative difference between using them for X% (disallowed
characters only) and Y% (everything but unified characters); the other
is "we want to encode some symbols in current use", in which case each
of these symbols should be subjected to individual scrutiny.
>> Take an abecedary, where the words containing letters not yet learned
>> or too complex to read are shown as pictures within text. These
>> pictures are used as text in a particular environment and likely even
>> constitute a well-defined set not unlike emoji (animals, fruits and
>> vegetables, toys, buildings, professions...).
>
> I would say that that's their main problem; they don't constitute a
> well-defined set, that in fact if you brought to together a large
> collection of these books and made a collection of any symbol that
> appeared in three of them, you would find that set covered few if any
> books.
What if we're talking about a language with a nascent writing system
(less than 10 y.o.) for which there are only 3 abecedaries so far?
>> Nevertheless, it does
>> not make the set of "abecedary symbols" eligible for encoding, because
>> there is no attested *symbolic* use.
>
> I fail to understand how a picture of a dog used systematically to
> replace the word "dog" has any more or less symbolic value than the
> word, particularly when the same picture is used for several types of
> dog.
It's a precomposed glyph for the word "dog" then. Sorry, not eligible
for encoding.
Leo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 13:33:19 CST