From: Andrew C. West (andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 07:59:48 CDT
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:05:00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > H.7 Some criteria weaken the case for encoding
>
> > -- the symbol is purely decorative
>
> This would seem to exclude dingbats altogether.
>
Or perhaps more apposite examples would be the shamrock and fleur-de-lis symbols
(see N2586R). Whilst the former symbol "is sometimes used in lexicography to
indicate botany or agriculture", and the latter symbol "symbolizes French
culture in general or the Francophonie specifically", I would think that most
people would consider them to be purely decorative.
If the shamrock and fleur-de-lis symbols pass the criteria outlined in Annex H,
it is hard to think of any symbol which would fail.
On the other hand, with absolutely no disrespect to Michael intended, the more
sceptical amongst us might be forgiven for thinking that the shamrock and
fleur-de-lis would never have been accepted for encoding if they had been
proposed by someone of lesser stature than Michael, especially given the minimal
examples of usage and justification for encoding provided in the proposal.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:00:51 CDT