Re: Tag characters

From: Asmus Freytag (t) <>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:13:17 -0700

On 5/20/2015 6:14 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:
> I've always been a bit partial to them and found it odd that they are intentionally not included in Unicode. Especially the novel concepts like the repeats.


If I were to write an actual proposal I would suggest naming them after
their international/modern use, but with the understanding that the
actual interpretation would be based on whatever signalling system you
intend to follow.

None of the existing users would be helped by having them named after
their shapes and colors. That is because some of the shapes and colors
are a bit complex an nobody I know learns them by description.

In a way, this is also what we do for many standard alphabets. We encode
LATIN SMALL LETTER O, not "small letter looking like a round circle",
and we leave it to the language whether to pronounce that long like an
"oh" or short, as in "hot" (for English) or more as an "oo" sound, as
in Swedish. We pick a conventional name for the element of the alphabet,
and then allow variations in use. (Some of the consonants show much
greater variation in pronunciation).

When I said "naming" we should use the alphabetic abbreviations that
they are associated with so that we can fit them into an open ended
system, like the other flags. Then, whatever techniques we will be using
(such as UFLs - Universal Flag Locators) would apply to them analogously
to the national flags.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unicode [] On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 6:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Tag characters
> On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:15:28 -0700
> "Asmus Freytag (t)" <> wrote:
>> Have there been any discussions of the flag alphabet? (Signal flags).
>> It seems to me that when schemes for representing sets of flags are
>> discussed, it would be useful to keep open the ability to use the same
>> scheme for signal flags -- perhaps with a different base character to
>> avoid collisions in the letter codes.
> If these are worthy of coding, I think the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics would be a better model - encode the form, not the semantic.
> Braille is another precedent.
> Richard.
Received on Thu May 21 2015 - 00:14:07 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 21 2015 - 00:14:08 CDT