From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 06 2009 - 22:07:02 CDT
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> However, this loose talk about "glyph variants" spooks me. The
> *identity* of a logo is in its *appearance*, not in the organization
> it symbolizes. From a character encoding perspective, if the new logo
> looks different, then it's not a variant glyph of the logo encoded by
> the existing character, but a new, *unencoded* entity.
Does Unicode now freely admit to encoding logos?
I know, the old JIS logo was probably encoded as a compatibility
character. The new one could not be, unless:
(a) there is a character set somewhere that encodes the two separately,
(b) all pretenses to "compatibility" are abandoned.
-- 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 : Thu Aug 06 2009 - 22:11:04 CDT