Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols

From: Andreas Stötzner <>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:40:44 +0200

Am 24.05.2013 um 20:40 schrieb Michel Suignard:

> Encoding pictographic symbols into Unicode is not an exact science.

I’m a researcher on matters like this for many years. I need to reply to that.

“Encoding alphabets to Unicode is not an exact science” – what does it tell? The sentence is true and yet it is nonsense.

Everything can be dealt with in a serious scientific way (“exact” is not the point here).
One of the bodies in the world still ignorant of this fact to the very day is Unicode. Which I feel is a mess.

For a corporation like MS in particular, it would be good policy (i.m.h.o.) to support one or two reasonable research projects about today’s common pictographic usage in general. This could then lead to sensible and comprehensive proposals and would make the Universal Character Set better, not just bigger.
If there would not be that old mantra “it cannot be” – which expresses contempt rather than insight.

        Andreas Stötzner.


Andreas Stötzner
Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung

Wilhelm-Plesse-Straße 32, 04157 Leipzig
Received on Sun May 26 2013 - 14:46:55 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun May 26 2013 - 14:46:56 CDT