From: Jukka K. Korpela (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2011 - 13:41:23 CST
William_J_G Overington wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <email@example.com>
>> 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 wasn’t implying any specific statement on that. I was perhaps too Laconic;
I meant that the artistic quality is not a relevant factor in judging the
“characterhood“ _or_ the intellectual property rights. For the latter,
personal creativity suffices, no matter how others might judge it
>>> 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.
I don’t think the source needs to be credited in the name, and I think the
word WEBDING (or something similar) alone suffices to indicate that a
specific shape is being encoded.
> 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.
I think the emoji encoding decision was a mistake, with more far-reaching
implications than people can anticipate, but I also think that it was a
decision to encode symbols (with minimal or no “characterhood”) as
characters, rather than something relevant to dingbats issues. It was a
matter of encoding pictographic or even iconic symbols—dingbats are a
-- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2011 - 13:43:40 CST