Re: Signage

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 18:46:38 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: UTS#10 (UCA) 7.1.3 Implicit Weights, Unassigned and Other Code˙A Points"

    > > But an approach that abstracts the name, then tries to re-imagine a
    > > representation from scratch is, in my view, very much misguided.
    > Recall that many of the emojis 1) have changed glyphs quite a lot from
    > the source glyphs, and 2) are to quite an extent defined from the *source*
    > (Japanese) **names** for them rather than the actual glyphs.

    O.k., I'll take emoji sources for $400, Alex.

    e-510, which is the id of the sources for U+1F381 WRAPPED PRESENT

       Docomo #72, purezento
       KDDI #144, purezento
       Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento
       "purezento" in all cases is the Katakana transliteration
       of English "present", which is now a borrowed Japanese word
       meaning, well, "present" (but just of the kind wrapped up
       and given as a gift). The saliant aspect of the glyphs in
       all 3 sets is the *bright red ribbon* around the box.
    3-535, which is the id of the sources for U+1F4E6 PACKAGE

       (Docomo #72, purezento)
       KDDI #165, pakkeeji
       (Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento)
       Only KDDI makes a distinction. The cross-mappings between
       vendors map KDDI #165 to the "purezento" on the other
       "pakkeeji" is the Katakana transliteration of English
       "package", which is now a borrowed Japanese word
       meaning, well, "package" (but of the kind typically wrapped
       up in brown paper, tied with a string or various kinds
       of fibrous straw, and not given as a gift -- i.e., the
       kind of wrapped up item you might carry out of a store).
       The connotation here is certainly not primarily
       a *postal* parcel, although it could apply to that as well,
       of course. The KDDI #165 glyph is distinguished from the
       KDDI #144 glyph in being a flatter box and tied up with
       a string, instead of a ribbon.
    It seems to me both the names and glyphs are just fine as they
    are for characters whose encoded purpose is mainly to serve
    as mappings for the emoji sets in question. Although I
    wouldn't object if somebody made a glyph that flattened the
    box for U+1F4E6, so the glyph was a little less confusable
    with U+1F381.

    But I agree with Asmus that starting from the *Unicode* names
    and then inventing fancies about how the characters should
    be depicted because of postal parcel rules about use of
    packing tape is misguided here.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 18:49:41 CDT