Title: Comments on L2/08-077R2 "Japanese TV Symbols"
Source: Karl Pentzlin - karl-pentzlin@europatastatur.de - 2008-05-07
These comments refer to:
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2008/08077r3-n3469.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" (ARIB 9001, 9002, 9005, 9006, 9008...9011,
9020...9031):
Rather than to put these in the Miscellaneous Symbols block
(U+2E00...2EFF), I propose to allocate a new Block "Traffic symbols"
in the SMP and allocate them there, e.g. at U+1F400...1F7FF.
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" (ARIB 9033...9040) also belong into
that block.
However, ARIB 9004 (proposed as U+26CEF PICK) and ARIB 9029 (proposed
as U+26DF BLACK TRUCK) should 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 (ARIB 9009, 9020...9023, 9026, 9030, 9031).
3. ARIB symbol 9003, HEAVY EXCLAMATION POINT, while used as a traffic
sign also, seems more universal. It should 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. As suggested in other comments, symbols which resemble technical symbols,
i.e. ARIB 9388 and 9389, should be placed in the Miscellaneous Technical
Symbols block (U+2300...23FF), rather than into the Miscellaneous
Symbols block (U+2600...26FF).
Moreover, symbols with a more geometrical than iconic appearance (i.e.
ARIB 9101...9105, 9132, 9376) should be placed into the Miscellaneous
Symbols and Arrows Block (U+2B00...2BBFF).
Thus, the Miscellaneous Symbols block at U+2600...26FF would not be
filled up almost completely right now, leaving space for more iconic
symbols to be encoded in the future in the same BMP block.
5. Some comments on single characters:
a. The reference glyph of ARIB 9132 MOUNTAIN (proposed as U+26F0)
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. Regarding the ARIB 9118 "factory" proposed as U+26ED FACTORY:
It should be stated clearly why this symbol is not unifiable with
U+263C SUN WITH RAYS.
Moreover, it should be named other, as it does not show a factory
(either something like FACTORY SYMBOL, or something like GEAR WITHOUT
HUB).
c. The ARIB 9120 "lighthouse" proposed as U+26EF LIGHTHOUSE 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.