Re: Armenian Eternity Sign (proposal)

> Well we could try to find some other name, but I don't think that SOME
SORT OF
> SUNLIKE SPIRAL SYMBOL is better than ARMENIAN ETERNITY SIGN.

It could be just ETERNITY SIGN or SOLAR SIGN (doesn't matter), without
specific attribution. (I am speaking about common-use dingbat block, of
course)

>> Do you mean their actual codes will be different from U+1F53E and
U+1F53F, specified in M57.13?
> Yes. A subsequent decision based on NB feedback on the first ballot was
to move them (back) to the Armenian block.

Then, obviously, there is no issue.

Best regards,
Alex.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com>wrote:

> On 19 Jan 2012, at 14:20, satai wrote:
>
> > Do you mean their actual codes will be different from U+1F53E and
> U+1F53F, specified in M57.13?
>
> Yes. A subsequent decision based on NB feedback on the first ballot was to
> move them (back) to the Armenian block.
>
> > I am not "worried", I am just trying to understand why keeping national
> attribution for a common-use character is so principal, while these symbols
> have specific meaning in more than one culture and the proposed name is not
> a well-known one.
>
> It's not possible for the standard to be both generic and encyclopaedic at
> the same time. The ultimate source for encoding these characters is an
> Armenian standard.
>
> > Why not to give it a culture-neutral way and define specific
> attributions via aliases?
>
> Well we could try to find some other name, but I don't think that SOME
> SORT OF SUNLIKE SPIRAL SYMBOL is better than ARMENIAN ETERNITY SIGN. I'd
> favour sticking to what we have. We're encoding the character used in an
> Armenian standard, named as such and intended for such a use.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 19 2012 - 09:25:57 CST