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

From: CE Whitehead (cewcathar@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 00:16:56 CST

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

    Hi.
     

    > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:09:21 +0000
    > From: wjgo_10009@btinternet.com
    > Subject: Re: On the possibility of encoding webdings in Unicode (from Re: square bullets added to unicode.)
    > To: unicode@unicode.org; jkorpela@cs.tut.fi
    > CC: wjgo_10009@btinternet.com
    >
    > On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> 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.
    >
    > For example,
    >
    > 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.
     
     
    I personally do like webdings -- they are as you say quite nice -- and I do not see the problem of encoding symbols that have some meaning; it's already been done for "transport and map symbols" too. (I don't think all icons are necessarily suitable for encoding in unicode; just basic icons -- without frills; if people want to color them, fill them in, whatever, that's a separate issue; people have to use some styling to fill them in; hope this makes sense.)
     
    Best,
     
    --C. E. Whitehead
    cewcathar@hotmail.com
    >
    > William Overington
    >
    > 26 January 2011
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
                                                   

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 00:22:14 CST