From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 17 2009 - 18:30:44 CDT
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> Example: most traffic symbols like DEER CROSSING or SPEED LIMIT 30
> should probably not be encoded as characters. The STOP sign or the
> European CAUTION sign, however, are examples of common symbols, that
> deserve status as characters. You find them as part of texts where
> they retain their customary shape, but don't refer to traffic, but are
> used in a generalized sense. Hence, they have become _common_ symbols.
The stop sign, like "pictures of cows," is another canonical example
presented in the WG2 "Principles and Procedures" document (updated less
than a year ago) of what should *not* be encoded. It's interesting to
see further evidence of how loosely the principles are applied, in spite
of all the protests that UTC is following the same principles in
encoding emoji that it followed two decades ago.
> It's not sufficient to just point at sets of symbols for that - you
> also need to isolate which ones are _common_ symbols in each set,
> according to the definition of this concept that I've proposed here.
Unless they can be defined as "compatibility characters," in which case
all of them must be encoded without question.
> I keep hoping that someone with the resources, time and interest will
> take on that project.
Maybe Google will find it strategic.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 17 2009 - 18:33:46 CDT