From: Jon Wilson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:04:32 EST
> "Ideographic" is a vexed term, and leads to bad reasoning, so let's not use it.
I won't disagree with that.
> There is little connection
> between the up and down arrows as used by linguists vs. chemists, but we
> encode only one set of arrows nevertheless.
However, consider the case of right and left arrows. A double barred
arrow has specific meaning ("implies" / "implied by") in mathematics and
logic. Hence extra glyphs are required. A very simple typographical
change makes the world of semantic difference. The semantics of a
circled A changes when the lines of the letter touch or extend past the
I disagree that the anarchy symbol is not a character used in the
representation of words. I can write a word beginning with "A" with
either a simple LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, or with an Anarchy symbol, or
with an existing CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A. The first two have
different meanings to anyone who understands what the Anarchy symbol is.
Any self-respecting anarchist would laugh at the third (although it
would constitute a suitable alternative glyph within the meaning of the
I also disagree that the Anarchy symbol has no use within a text. I do
not doubt that I can find examples of published texts where the anarchy
symbol is used throughout. Beware of saying "that isn't real text" just
because the character isn't currently in Unicode. The code should
represent usage, not the other way round. I understand that finding such
text is probably crucial to a successful application.
I also dispute that the anarchy symbol has the same ideographic value as
a McDonalds logo. The McDonalds arch is only meaningful when represented
in a particular font (and perhaps colour). The specific latin font used
to represent the CAPITAL A in the anarchy symbol is unimportant.
PS. Croquet challenge accepted - I have a set at home. I believe I get
to choose time and location?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:36:38 EST