Re: Productive Glyph Design vs. Productive Character Representation (was: Re: Quick survey of Apple symbol fonts ... )

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:43:52 -0700

Ken Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:

> The IBM glyphs for the record mark, segment mark, and group mark,
> strike me as clearly in the camp of "Let's make up new symbols by
> crossing different numbers of horizontal and vertical lines." That's
> why I cited the already-encoded examples of such symbols -- all of
> which are encoded as unitary symbols, and none of which has any formal
> decompositions. I think we'd be heading down the rabbit hole if we
> looked towards trying to represent them by sequences of some existing
> base symbol with one or more lines in one orientation and some
> existing combining mark with one or more lines in the other
> orientation.

But it might make for some hilarious RFC 5242 moments.

I agree with Ken's main point: this sort of symbol is not what the
policy against new precomposed characters is all about.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­
Received on Tue Jul 19 2011 - 14:48:58 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 19 2011 - 14:49:00 CDT