From: Julian Bradfield (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2011 - 03:03:08 CDT
On 2011-04-03, James Allan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have forgotten now where I first seen these hatchings, but they are,
> or at least were, in common use.
In the contexts I described, such as books where colour is too
> indicate furs on page 87. Admittedly special characters are not used,
Precisely the point. They never have been.
> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatching_system for a discussion
> of various hatching systems used in heraldry of which the Petra Sancta
> system advocated by Everson is the most commonly used.
I don't understand your point. Anybody who (a) knows anything about
heraldry, OR (b) has read Michael's proposal, knows this. The
existence of hatching systems is not in dispute.
> I realize that you are talking about not having seen characters showing
> the hatchings to be used in legends rather than not seeing the hatchings
> themselves, but that ought to have been made more clear.
It was clear if you had followed the discussion, or even from the
entirety of the post from which you extracted a paragraph.
> never been used, then Everson’s proposal is just another one for
> characters that might be useful. It has been stated again and again that
> characters will not be encoded by Unicode merely because they “might” be
Indeed. Whether practice has followed the statement is another
It might have been better if Unicode had allocated a "Supplementary
Symbolic Plane" specifically for the purpose of non-character
graphics; then at least font designers and text processors could
simply ignore that entire plane, and then the multilingual planes
could have held to a strict policy. Unfortunately that's not where we
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 04 2011 - 03:08:28 CDT