From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2007 - 12:47:29 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> It is the latter type of usage that brings this into the pool of symbols
> that are eligible to be evaluated for encoding. Unfortunately, it's
> unlikely that even you will find many online examples of such use, due
> to the lack of character encoding - all you can expect to find online is
> instances where this has been turned into a picture (or logo).
You may find them online, but using non-encoded forms:
* may be using specific embedded fonts referencing some private usage
encoding relative to that specific font.
* in HTML pages where they could be currently substituted every as images
(possibly with the help of CSS styles to avoid making complicated references
to them through an image element with an attribute and an URI)
* as embedded SVG objects within XML data (later referended with a <svg
use="#ref"/> element.
* in PDF documents (everything is a graphic object, including the rest of
the text which is encoded in its rendered form as a set of graphic drawing
primitives)
* in scanned pages of publications
All these uses will be difficult to find through standard search engines
that don't know how they are represented (there's currently no good way to
look for graphics in the web without the help of metadata for indexing
them).
May be a search for images whose description contains the "fish" word could
help find some of these documents: we could first search for matching glyphs
and then we can look for other documents which intend to embed them this
way, if there's a searchable index of external references (Google may
perform this type of searches, i.e. looking for documents that make external
references to the URL of an image).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 02 2007 - 12:50:53 CST