Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>
>
>
> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type
> symbols, and, as I keep pointing out, they absolutely fall within the scope
> of geometrical symbols for which there is ample precedent supporting both
> plain text usage as well as a standardized encoding.
>

I oppose your argument of "garden-variety" type symbols because consistancy
of this usge with a defined pattern is not demonstated, included in the
precise domain where they are found.

>
> The suggested characters (they haven't actually been formally proposed
> yet) would in no way push the envelope.
>
> [1] We should only encode characters that users would reliably draw
>> manually using a plum or rollpen, independantly of color, or of the width
>> of the tool used to draw strokes, or possibly to fill them : basic
>> orientation of glyphs however will be a candidate if its variation in the
>> same text orientation is significant (this includes mirrored, or upside
>> down characters, or significant changes of size and position relative to
>> the baseline.
>
>
> [2] Some exceptions are given to maths symbols (including letter-like)
>> which are encoded specifically with their maths semantics for use in maths,
>> but not for general purpose text.
>
>

> This is an entirely novel theory of encoding, and one, that I would like
> to point out, is very much your personal view. It does not have a
> foundation (or echo, or equivalent) in anything that really defines how
> encoding is done for the Unicode standard.

[1] The first part is a good real-life expression of what is meant by
abstract character and the fact that we don't encode glyphs. So this is not
so much a novelty (this is stated in the standard that we don't encode
glyphs but only abstract characters independantly of orthogonal styles and
tools used to render them).

[2] The second part is the expression of the exceptions that have been made
ONLY because there REALLY was a well-defined pattern of usage where the
additional meaning of a precise style is consistant (and really HAD TO
be)... Allowing then these exceptions (the other exceptions have been for
interoperability with older character sets for terminals that had almost no
graphic capabilities). So this is also not a noverlty.

For now we lack the evidence of a consistant meaning in any given domain
(not too much specialized to a single source at a single place for this
consistancy).
Received on Sun Nov 11 2012 - 23:29:18 CST