L2/08-158

Comments on L2/08-077R2 "Japanese TV Symbols"
Karl Pentzlin - karl-pentzlin@europatastatur.de - 2008-04-16

These comments refer to:
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2008/08077r2-japanese-tv.pdf 
They were originally provided on the symbols@unicode.org mailing list at
2008-03-05 and 2008-04-11. The text given here is slightly edited.

References:
"ARIB original" refers to:
 http://www.arib.or.jp/english/html/overview/doc/6-STD-B24v5_1-1P3-E1.pdf

1. Regarding the "traffic signs":
   Rather than to put these in the Miscellaneous Symbols block
   (2E00..2EFF), I prefer to allocate a new Block "Traffic symbols"
   in the SMP and allocate them there.
   Unless the other symbols which are applicable universally, traffic
   signs are designed by the legislation of specific countries and
   applicable only in these countries. Thus, they are a semantic
   category of their own.
   This block should be sufficiently large for future additions,
   e.g. 1024 code positions.

   The "circled numbers on black square" also belong into that block.

   However, ARIB 9004 (proposed as U+26CE PICK) and ARIB 9029 (proposed
   as U+26DE BLACK TRUCK) may be retained in the Miscellaneous Symbols
   block as proposed, as they have a more general appearance.

2. Those traffic signs which are designed for leftway traffic
   should be named so (e.g. ARIB 9020).

3. ARIB symbol 9003, HEAVY EXCLAMATION POINT, while used as a traffic
   sign also, seems more universal. It could be encoded in the
   Dingbats block (2700-27BF) at U+2700 (thus the header "ITC Zapf
   dingbats series 100" would apply to the code points from U+2701).

4. Some comments on single characters:

 a. The reference glyph of ARIB 9132 MOUNTAIN (proposed as U+26EE)
    looks like U+25B2 BLACK UP-POINTING TRIANGLE.
    The ARIB original shows a slightly curved design with a rounded
    top.
    Likewise, the reference glyph should clearly show these features,
    showing clearly that the symbol is not to be unified with U+25B2.

 b. The ARIB 9118 "factory" proposed as U+26EB GEAR cannot be named
    this as there is already a (different looking) U+2699 GEAR.
    It could be named GEAR WITHOUT HUB.
    Moreover, it should be stated clearly why this symbol is not
    unifiable with U+263C SUN WITH RAYS.

 c. The ARIB 9120 "lighthouse" proposed as U+26ED LIHGHTHOUSE should
    be named other, as the symbol does not show a lighthouse
    (either something like LIGHTHOUSE SYMBOL, or something like
    GEAR WITH BLACK CIRCLE INSIDE).
    Moreover, it should be stated clearly why this symbol is not
    unifiable with U+2699 GEAR. Maybe the reference symbol should be
    more similar to the ARIB original, showing a larger dot inside
    which fills the most part of the interior.

 d. The reference glyph for ARIB 9155 proposed as U+1F12D CIRCLED
    LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D is wrong.
    As the ARIB original shows and the proposed name says, the outer
    part of the glyph has to be a circle, not an oval.

 e. ARIB 9122 "airport" is unified with U+2708 AIRPLANE.
    The ARIB plane heads upwards while the Unicode plane heads right.
    As most other technical and other symbols (not to mention arrows)
    are not unified if they point in different directions, it may be
    appropriate to encode a new UPWARD HEADING AIRPLANE.

 f. The ARIB symbols 9205 and 9206 are unified with U+2B2F WHITE
    VERTICAL ELLIPSE resp. U+2B2E BLACK VERTICAL ELLIPSE.
    The ARIB original shows glyphs which clearly are not ellipses but
    "beans", i.e. squares with semicircles attached above and below.
    Therefore (as "geometric shapes" do not allow glyph variation
    beyond the scope denoted by their name), it seems appropriate
    to encode then as two new symbols WHITE resp. BLACK SQUARE WITH
    SEMICIRCLES ABOVE AND BELOW.

5. ARIB symbols consisting of circles and ovals always seem to have a
   heavy circle or oval outwards. The proposal retains this in most
   cases, as in proposing ARIB 9032 as a new U+26E1 HEAVY LARGE CIRCLE
   rather than to unify with U+25EF LARGE CIRCLE.
   Albeit, the proposal does this not consequently.

   To maintain the "heaviness" consequently, it seems appropriate:

 a. ARIB 9102 "prefectural office" is proposed as U+26E3 OVAL BULLSEYE.
    A more appropriate name would be HEAVY HORIZONTAL OVAL WITH LIGHT
    OVAL INSIDE (or HEAVY OVAL BULLSEYE).

 b. ARIB 9103 "municipial office" is unified with U+25CE BULLSEYE.
    It should be proposed as a new symbol "HEAVY CIRCLE WITH LIGHT
    CIRCLE INSIDE (or HEAVY BULLSEYE).