From: William_J_G Overington (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2011 - 09:09:21 CST
On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <email@example.com> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington wrote:
> > Webdings has some very stylish graphic art,
> That’s a matter of opinion, ...
Thank you for replying.
Well, I do not pretend to be an art expert: I just happen to think some of them very stylish myself. I suppose that I should have put "... has, in my opinion, some ..." in case some other people did not agree. I like to think that I am usually quite good at remembering to separate my opinions from scientific fact: it looks like I forgot this time!
> > would it be something like
> > U+1XXXX MICROSOFT WEBDING GLYPH PARK
> Why not simply WEBDING PARK?
Due to the need to credit a source and the need to express that the glyph for the character is fixed rather than the glyph for the character being font-designer-designable.
> > or would it be something like
> > U+1XXXX GRASS WITH TREE AND PATH
> > so that the webding park glyph was regarded as just one possible glyph for the character?
> Hardly. The very idea of dingbats is that the shape is the meaning. If you wish to encode a generic visual idea (like “grass with tree and path”) or a generic semantic idea (like “symbol for park”), then you’re outside dingbatland—and also outside the scope of character encoding standards.
Oh? The encoding of the emoji did not port glyphs absolutely from mobile telephone font implementations to the Unicode code chart - yet the emoji are not outside the scope of character encoding standards.
U+1F304 SUNRISE OVER MOUNTAINS
I wonder if specifying a fixed glyph design would be acceptable to the encoding committees - and I do mean that as a question, not as an opinion one way or the other as to what the committees might decide.
26 January 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2011 - 09:11:56 CST