From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Sun Dec 14 2003 - 22:11:18 EST
Forgot to include unicode@unicode.org in this reply.
~mark
attached mail follows:
You may be right; I couldn't say. My guess is that it is used in text,
just based on the importance given to the symbol by the regime, but
you'd have to ask a suitable historian.
However, now that you mention it, it is true that the stylized S used in
the abbreviation for the SS was actually required in all fonts by the
Nazi government, so by that reasoning it, at least, has some standing
for being encoded (though I can't say I feel any great desire to see that).
Ref: "The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?" Steven Heller, ISBN
1-588115-041-5
~mark
On 12/14/03 11:11, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 10:28 AM -0500 12/14/03, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>> I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I find myself thinking that the
>> swastika, THE Nazi swastika, right-facing, tilted 45°, proper ratio
>> of stroke-thickness, the whole deal, should be encoded in Unicode.
>> As a matter of history: it *is* a symbol of profound significance in
>> the history of the world. If we have U+262D HAMMER AND SICKLE and
>> U+262E PEACE SYMBOL and all the various crosses and crescents and
>> whatnot, the swastika should be there as well.
>
>
> Is it actually used anywhere as a character in text? I suspect some of
> those other symbols like U+262D HAMMER AND SICKLE and U+262E PEACE
> SYMBOL were put in Unicode for compatibility with legacy encodings.
> They may not all have made the cut if they were forced to be justified
> as characters on their own, individual merits. The same may be true
> for the Nazi swastika.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 14 2003 - 22:56:05 EST