Re: On the possibility of encoding webdings in Unicode (from Re: square bullets added to unicode.)

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Wed Jan 26 2011 - 13:41:23 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "RE: On the possibility of encoding webdings in Unicode (from Re: square bullets added to unicode.)"

    William_J_G Overington wrote:

    > On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <>
    > 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 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

    >> 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
    different dimension.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2011 - 13:43:40 CST