Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson wrote as follows. At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote: If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to 10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font with a glyph for the proposed character at the proposed code point. They just can't DISTRIBUTE the font until the appropriate standard is released. That's correct. Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1. If these characters have been accepted, why not formally warrant their use now by having Unicode 4.001 and then having Unicode 4.002 when a few more are accepted? These minor additions to the Standard could be produced as characters are accepted and publicised in the Unicode Consortium's webspace. If the characters have not been accepted then they cannot be considered ready to be used, yet if they have been accepted, what is the problem in releasing them so that people who want to get on with using them can do so? Some fontmakers can react to new releases more quickly than can some other fontmakers, so why should progress be slowed down for the benefit of those who cannot add new glyphs into fonts quickly? For example, symbols for audio description, subtitles and signing are needed for broadcasting. Will that need to have years of waiting and using the Private Use Area when it could be a fairly swift process and the characters could be implemented into read-only memories in interactive television sets that much sooner? Why is it that it is regarded by the Unicode Consortium as reasonable that it takes years to get a character through the committees and into use? Surely where a few characters are needed the Unicode Consortium and ISO need to take a twenty-first century attitude to getting the job done for people's needs rather than having the sort of delays which might have been acceptable in days gone by. The idea of having to use the Private Use Area for a period after the characters have been accepted is just a nonsense. William Overington 26 June 2003
Re: Revised N2586R
Peter Constable wrote as follows. the name is simply a unique identifier within the std. Well, the Standard is the authority for what is the meaning of the symbol when found in a file of plain text. So if the symbol is in a plain text file before or after the name of a person then the Standard implies a meaning to the plain text file. A name may be somewhat indicative of it's function, but is not necessarily so. Well, that could ultimately be an issue before the courts in a libel case if someone publishes a text with a symbol next to someone's name. A key issue might well be as to what is the defined meaning of the symbol in the Standard. Certainly, the issue of what a reasonable person seeing that symbol next to someone's name might conclude is being published about the person might well also be important, even if that meaning is not in the Standard. You could call it WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL, but that engineering of the standard is not also social engineering, and people may still use it to label individuals in a way that may be violating human rights -- we cannot stop that. No matter what we call it, end users are not very likely going to be aware of the name in the standard; they're just going to look for the shape, and if they find it, they'll use it for whatever purpose they chose to. Certainly. Yet a plain text interchangeable file would not have the meaning built into it by the Standard. I agree though that there may well still be great problems. William Overington 26 June 2003
Re: Revised N2586R
William Overington WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk wrote: Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1. If these characters have been accepted, why not formally warrant their use now by having Unicode 4.001 and then having Unicode 4.002 when a few more are accepted? These minor additions to the Standard could be produced as characters are accepted and publicised in the Unicode Consortium's webspace. If the characters have not been accepted then they cannot be considered ready to be used, yet if they have been accepted, what is the problem in releasing them so that people who want to get on with using them can do so? Some fontmakers can react to new releases more quickly than can some other fontmakers, so why should progress be slowed down for the benefit of those who cannot add new glyphs into fonts quickly? That's just the way standards work. You have to wait until final, FINAL approval and official release before you can do newly approved things conformantly. There has to be a chance for the authority at the very end of the process to say, Wait a minute, I see a problem, this can't go out like this. Dealing with a problem that slipped through because the process was fast-tracked or sidestepped is much more expensive than waiting for the process to run its course. This is not a nonsense, it makes a lot of sense for anyone who's seen what can happen when process is ignored. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: Revised N2586R
William Overington wrote on 06/26/2003 06:24:44 AM: the name is simply a unique identifier within the std. Well, the Standard is the authority for what is the meaning of the symbol when found in a file of plain text. So if the symbol is in a plain text file before or after the name of a person then the Standard implies a meaning to the plain text file. The only meaning that the Standard implies is that the character encoded at codepoint x represents they symbol of a wheelchair. It does not imply *anything* about how its usage in juxtaposition with the name of a person should be interpreted. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
William Overington wrote on 06/26/2003 07:03:12 AM: yet I am suggesting that where a few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1. Once both UTC and WG2 have approved the assignment of characters to particular codepoints, I might risk making fonts using those codepoints for those characters, as it's not very likely the codepoints will be changed at that point. There's no guarantee that would not happen, however, so I certainly wouldn't distribute such fonts if I were a commercial foundary -- too much at stake. If an ammendment to ISO 10646 gets published prior to a new version of Unicode, though, that would constitute a guarantee the codepoints will not change. If these characters have been accepted, why not formally warrant their use now by having Unicode 4.001 and then having Unicode 4.002 when a few more are accepted? That is not how versioning is done with the standard. Please read http://www.unicode.org/standard/versions/ Some fontmakers can react to new releases more quickly than can some other fontmakers, so why should progress be slowed down for the benefit of those who cannot add new glyphs into fonts quickly? Fontmakers don't need to wait until a new version is published before they start preparing fonts. For example, symbols for audio description, subtitles and signing are needed for broadcasting. Will that need to have years of waiting and using the Private Use Area when it could be a fairly swift process and the characters could be implemented into read-only memories in interactive television sets that much sooner? Well, if the characters haven't even been proposed for addition to the standard, then yes, it will take years of PUA usage. Why is it that it is regarded by the Unicode Consortium as reasonable that it takes years to get a character through the committees and into use? Because there is a process that takes time. International standards aren't created by a few people working out of their garage. Some international standards take far longer than do updates to Unicode. Surely where a few characters are needed the Unicode Consortium and ISO need to take a twenty-first century attitude to getting the job done It might be a good idea to become more familiar with the actual process and work on international standards in general before criticizing the people doing the work. There are a number of people working quite hard on this stuff, with their time being volunteered by the organizations and companies they represent, or from their own personal time. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
At 13:03 +0100 2003-06-26, William Overington wrote: Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1. No, there shouldn't. The process will not be changed. Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 are synchronized, and JTC1 ballotting processes are what they are. No further discussion is necessary, as it is pointless. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
At 12:09 -0500 2003-06-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only meaning that the Standard implies is that the character encoded at codepoint x represents they symbol of a wheelchair. It does not imply *anything* about how its usage in juxtaposition with the name of a person should be interpreted. Indeed William's argument that HANDICAPPED is somehow inappropriate just doesn't wash. In Europe at least, many handicapped people consider it far more polite to be called handicapped or behindert or what have you than to be subject to such politically correct monstrosities as differently abled. Which is not to say that the Name Police won't prefer WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL. Time will tell. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: WHEELCHAIR (was Revised N2586R)
WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL at least has the virtue of being descriptive of the symbol rather than of the use and thus potentially more neutral all the way around. K - Original Message - From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Revised N2586R At 12:09 -0500 2003-06-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only meaning that the Standard implies is that the character encoded at codepoint x represents they symbol of a wheelchair. It does not imply *anything* about how its usage in juxtaposition with the name of a person should be interpreted. Indeed William's argument that HANDICAPPED is somehow inappropriate just doesn't wash. In Europe at least, many handicapped people consider it far more polite to be called handicapped or behindert or what have you than to be subject to such politically correct monstrosities as differently abled. Which is not to say that the Name Police won't prefer WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL. Time will tell. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
Doug, Peter, and Michael already provided good responses to this suggestion by William O, but here is a little further clarification. Well, certainly authority would be needed, yet I am suggesting that where a few characters added into an established block are accepted, which is what is claimed for these characters, there should be a faster route than having to wait for bulk release in Unicode 4.1. If these characters have been accepted, why not formally warrant their use now by having Unicode 4.001 and then having Unicode 4.002 when a few more are accepted? Approvals aren't *finished* until both the UTC and ISO JTC1/SC2/WG2 have completed their work. The JTC1 balloting and approval process is a lengthy and deliberate one, and there are many precedents where a proposed character, perhaps one already approved by the UTC, has been moved in a subsequent ballotting in response to a national body comment. Only when both committees have completed all approvals and have verified they are finally in synch with each other, do they proceed with formal publication of the *standardized* encodings for the new characters. The reasons the UTC approves characters and posts them in the Pipeline page at www.unicode.org in advance of the actual final standardization are: A. To avoid the chicken and the egg problem for the two committees. Someone has to go first on an approval, since the committees do not meet jointly. Sometimes the UTC goes first, and sometimes WG2 goes first. B. To give notice to people regarding what is in process and what stage of approval it is at. This helps in precluding duplicate submissions and also helps in assigning code points for new characters when we are dealing with large numbers of new submissions. These minor additions to the Standard could be produced as characters are accepted and publicised in the Unicode Consortium's webspace. The UTC can and does give notification regarding what characters have reached approved status. The Pipeline page at www.unicode.org is, for example, about to be updated with the 215 new character approvals from the recent UTC meeting. If the characters have not been accepted then they cannot be considered ready to be used, yet if they have been accepted, what is the problem in releasing them so that people who want to get on with using them can do so? See above. Standardization bodies must move deliberately and carefully, since if they publish mistakes, everybody is saddled with them essentially forever. In the case of encoding large numbers of additional characters, because the UTC has plenty of experience at the kind of shuffling around that may occur while ballotting is still under consideration, it would be irresponsible to publish small revisions and encourage people to start using characters that we know have not yet completed all steps of the standardization process. Why is it that it is regarded by the Unicode Consortium as reasonable that it takes years to get a character through the committees and into use? Because with the experience of four major revisions of the Unicode Standard (and numerous minor revisions) and the experience of three major revisions of ISO/IEC 10646 (and numerous individual amendments) under out belt, we know that is how long it takes in actual practice. The idea of having to use the Private Use Area for a period after the characters have been accepted is just a nonsense. Please take a look at: http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Caution.html which has long been posted to help explain why character approval is not just an instantaneous process. The further along a particular character happens to be in the ISO JTC1 approval process, the less likely it is that it will actually move before the standard is actually published. Implementers can, of course, choose whatever level of risk they can handle when doing early implemention of provisionally approved characters which have not yet been formally published in the standards. But if they guess wrong and implement a character (in a font or in anything else) that is moved at some point in the ballotting, then that was just the risk they took, and they can't expect to come back to the committees bearing complaints and grievances about it. If you, for example, want to put U+267F HANDICAPPED SIGN in a font now, nobody will stop you, but bear in mind that this character is only at Stage 1 of the ISO process -- it has not yet been considered or even provisionally approved by WG2. Not only is the name likely to change (based on all the issues already discussed), but it is conceivable that WG2 could decide to approve it at some other code position instead. It is even conceivable that WG2 could *refuse* to encode the character. There have been precedents, where a UTC approved character met opposition in WG2, and the UTC later decided to rescind its approval in favor of maintaining synchronization of the standards when
Re: Revised N2586R
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/24/2003 04:54:30 AM: This symbol [fleur-de-lis] is commonly found and used in some printed books, sometimes as a bullet-like character, but most often to terminate a chapter or add fioritures near a title Well, such examples are better than a sample showing a description of the symbol and its significance. But bullets and flourishes aren't necessarily candidates for encoding in the UCS. There are an endless number of possible flourishes. often used in patterns of 3 symbols If the bullet / flourish is a set of 3 f-d-l in an inverted triangular pattern, someone would have to be proposing that combination as a distinct, atomic character. royalists, when opponsed to the later Emperor supporters which used the Eagle, and the Republicans using branches of chest and olivetrees). So, I suppose these are going to be proposed, too. A similar, culturally linked symbol is the ermine spot, shortly ermine And the lion, and the gryffen, and the dragon, and... The ermine spot seems to be found and used in various places, including modern book publications within text, where it is not only considered decorative but linked to a strong Breton reference. Create a doc with samples. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson wrote on 06/24/2003 05:52:09 AM: Yes. Between the databases. For instance. Look, William, I' was saying that for instance, an Arizona number plate Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO SYMBOL? My wife's from Arizona; I'll back that one. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
William Overington wrote on 06/24/2003 05:32:56 AM: In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693. Bad idea. Bad William. No biscuit. However, what is the correct approach? No, it is not. The correct approach is to first get something encoded in the standard, then create fonts with it at the assigned codepoint. If you want to put it in a font in the meantime, use a PUA codepoint, or create a font with a different encoding, such as a symbol font. Putting this at U+2693 in a unicode-encode font violates conformance requirements. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
I am rather concerned that the name HANDICAPPED SIGN is being used without any justification or discussion of the name of the character. The Name Police approved. ;-) I am rather concerned about the Orwellian nightmare possibilities of this and believe that vigilance is a necessary activity to protect freedom. Oh, spare us. Well, it is like the Millennium bug problem. People took it seriously and spent a lot of time and effort in preventing it causing chaos. When nothing happened a news anchor on British TV in early January 2000 asked an expert in the studio if, as nothing had happened, all the concern had been just a lot of hype. The expert explained that it was only because of the concern and the care taken that nothing had gone wrong on 1 January 2000. In like manner I feel that it is very important that care be taken now over issues such as the possibility of an Orwellian nightmare then when it does not happen although we might not be sure whether our vigilance prevented it happening or whether it would not have happened at all, nevertheless it will not happen: whereas if we do not bother who knows what practices might exist with databases in ten or twenty years time. Likely WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL is a more accurate name. That is a good suggestion. Perhaps WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL could be used instead of HANDICAPPED SIGN please. A guiding principle for encoding symbols could be that the description applies to the symbol not to any person whom it might be used to describe in some applications. There is a DISABILITY SYMBOL http://www.mdx.ac.uk/awards/disable.htm which is different; it's called the TWO TICKS SYMBOL as well. Where I have seen the two ticks symbol in use is to indicate in brochures and advertisements that an organization claims to take care to treat people who have disabilities in a fair manner, doing what is necessary to help them use facilities or be employed. It is not applied, as far as I know, to individuals who have a disability. An Orwellian nightmare scenario of just encoding the symbols and leaving it to people who use Unicode as to how they use the symbols is not attractive. Rein in those hares, William, please. Well, I realize that what I say may, at first glance, possibly appear extreme at times, yet please do consider what I write in an objective manner. If Unicode has a WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL then that is a symbol, if Unicode encodes a HANDICAPPED SIGN then that is a description of someone to whom it is applied, a Boolean sign for all, whatever the disability may be, whether it is relevant to the matter in hand or not. I do wonder whether the encoding of the symbol as HANDICAPPED SIGN would be consistent with human rights as it would be assisting automated decision making with a Boolean flag and providing an infrastructure for such practices. However, hopefully those of you who have the power to vote on these matters will act to change the name from HANDICAPPED SIGN so as to take account of these concerns. For me, WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL seems fine as the name simply describes the symbol. However, it may be that other people might have other views on the name. William Overington 25 June 2003
Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote: Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of things. In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on heraldic crests, but can't recall seeing it in text. I don't have access to a Scout manual here ;-) I do. There's a whole nice page explaining the various parts of the Boy Scout badge. (It's more than just a fleur-de-lis; there's an eagle, a shield, two stars, a loop, and a scroll with the words BE PREPARED.) But nowhere is it used in running text, as a dingbat or otherwise. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: Revised N2586R
At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote: If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to 10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font with a glyph for the proposed character at the proposed code point. They just can't DISTRIBUTE the font until the appropriate standard is released. That's correct. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
Peter_Constable at sil dot org wrote: William Overington wrote on 06/24/2003 05:32:56 AM: In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693. Bad idea. Bad William. No biscuit. Well, wait a minute. If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to 10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font with a glyph for the proposed character at the proposed code point. They just can't DISTRIBUTE the font until the appropriate standard is released. It's exactly the same situation with software written to standards-in-progress, where the requirements analysis, design, implementation, and early testing can all be done against a preliminary draft of the standard, but final conformance testing and shipping has to wait until the standard is formally approved and released. So William can have his biscuit, he just has to wait until Unicode 4.1 before he can eat it. :-) -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: Revised N2586R
Speaking of Orwellian nightmare scenarios, I don't get this reference. I read Homage to Catalonia, but could someone please explain this Orwellian nightmare? I can't figure out, what does the Spanish civil war have to do with Unicode? Yer ol' pal, Youtie _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Revised N2586R
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:11 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote: If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to 10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a font with a glyph for the proposed character at the proposed code point. They just can't DISTRIBUTE the font until the appropriate standard is released. That's correct. I think they can DISTRIBUTE it, in a font format that excludes a Unicode encoding, or uses PUA positions (TrueType, OpenType, ...) For use in a proposal specification, the representative glyph may also be provided only as a collection of fixed scale bitmaps for various point sizes, or better using a SVG (or similar like WMF, MacDraw, ...) vector graphic format, with a disclaimer for the copyright, allowing a royaltee-free reuse of this glyph (including for embedding) by Unicode and ISO10646 in their published charts. Then it can still be easily embedded in a PDF file... Font designers may also propose this character in a TTF font containing only that glyph at the proposed codepoint, with a font name that explicitly says that this font is a beta version and contains the proposed character name, and the name of the author. This long font name will greatly limit the interchange of the font outside of the proposal documents where it would be embedded. -- Philippe.
Re: Revised N2586R
At 09:17 AM 6/25/2003, Youtie Effaight wrote: Speaking of Orwellian nightmare scenarios, I don't get this reference. I read Homage to Catalonia, but could someone please explain this Orwellian nightmare? I can't figure out, what does the Spanish civil war have to do with Unicode? I missed the reference on the Unicode list, but I think you need to read _1984_, not _Homage to Catalonia_.. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism. - Umberto Eco
Re: Revised N2586R
At 00:56 -0500 2003-06-25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Everson wrote on 06/24/2003 05:52:09 AM: Yes. Between the databases. For instance. Look, William, I' was saying that for instance, an Arizona number plate Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO SYMBOL? My wife's from Arizona; I'll back that one. Recte SAGUARO. I lived in Tucson from junior high to my B.A. I guess I would propose one if it were, as the SHAMROCK is, used to indicate something in lexicography or the like. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Saguaros in Tucson (was Re: Revised N2586R)
Oh yeah, that reminds me. When are you going to propose the SUGUARO SYMBOL? My wife's from Arizona; I'll back that one. Recte SAGUARO. I lived in Tucson from junior high to my B.A. I guess I would propose one if it were, as the SHAMROCK is, used to indicate something in lexicography or the like. Or my fav, the TEXAS-SHAPED BULLET on Texas license plates. My wife's from Texas; I'll back that one. ;-) http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/txplates/ Note that this bullet started out as a star U+2605, but in 1975, in another important Act of the Texas Legislature, was changed to the now-famous TEXAS-SHAPED BULLET. Maybe the TxDOT databases would be served by having that encoded as a Unicode character. --Ken
Re: Revised N2586R
William Overington wrote on 06/25/2003 06:26:25 AM: Well, I realize that what I say may, at first glance, possibly appear extreme at times, yet please do consider what I write in an objective manner. If Unicode has a WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL then that is a symbol, if Unicode encodes a HANDICAPPED SIGN then that is a description of someone to whom it is applied, a Boolean sign for all, whatever the disability may be, whether it is relevant to the matter in hand or not. I do wonder whether the encoding of the symbol as HANDICAPPED SIGN would be consistent with human rights as it would be assisting automated decision making with a Boolean flag and providing an infrastructure for such practices. Wm, the name is simply a unique identifier within the std. A name may be somewhat indicative of it's function, but is not necessarily so. You could call it WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL, but that engineering of the standard is not also social engineering, and people may still use it to label individuals in a way that may be violating human rights -- we cannot stop that. No matter what we call it, end users are not very likely going to be aware of the name in the standard; they're just going to look for the shape, and if they find it, they'll use it for whatever purpose they chose to. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM: We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have, as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have such a map here in the house. But just because a symbol appears on maps, does that mean it should be encoded as a character? I've seen a lot of maps that have a pointed cross showing four cardinal points of the compass; should we encode that? Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of things. In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on heraldic crests, but can't recall seeing it in text. I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case and the five characters were accepted. So, this isn't a new proposal? These characters have already been accepted? (If so, that's fine.) - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM: Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of things. In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on heraldic crests, but can't recall seeing it in text. This symbol is commonly found and used in some printed books, sometimes as a bullet-like character, but most often to terminate a chapter or add fioritures near a title, often used in patterns of 3 symbols, in text related to royal decisions in the old Kingdom of France before the French Revolution (and sometimes used after, by royalists, when opponsed to the later Emperor supporters which used the Eagle, and the Republicans using branches of chest and olivetrees). This is definitely a symbol of the King, and it is still used today in modern heraldic, on French regional flags like Ile-de-France (around Paris, the royal domain), Burgundy (near Dijon), Center (near Orleans), Pays-de-Loire (near Nantes), Pycardy (near Amiens), Provence-Alps-Cote-d'Azur (near Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, Nice), Rhone-Alps (near Lyon) as seen on this page: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pierre.gay/PagesFra/RegMetro It is also related to French cultural attachment in other countries, and used in Quebec. A similar, culturally linked symbol is the ermine spot, shortly ermine, (that some are confusing with a spider) as found on the white and black Breton flag (the Gwenn-ha-Du, recreated in late 20th century with this symbol, born from an old distinction Order of the Ermine, before Brittany was attached to the Kingdom of France), and also for the current flag of Pays-de-la-Loire, a modern region created after the Revolution, with attachments to both the historic Duchy of Brittany (Nantes), and the Kingdom of France (the rest of the modern region). The ermine spot seems to be found and used in various places, including modern book publications within text, where it is not only considered decorative but linked to a strong Breton reference. Lots of historic and descriptive info on one of the mirrors of the Flags of the World site, such as: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/index.html
Re: Revised N2586R
At 00:41 -0500 2003-06-24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Everson wrote on 06/23/2003 07:54:13 AM: We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have, as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have such a map here in the house. But just because a symbol appears on maps, does that mean it should be encoded as a character? I've seen a lot of maps that have a pointed cross showing four cardinal points of the compass; should we encode that? Sigh. Peter, it's just an example. It seems that there are a number of symbols use on maps which may also have other uses. The crossed swords which = battlefield in cartography and which = died in battle in genealogy. Should a COMPASS ROSE be encoded also? It's a fair question to ask. It is not clear to me that every symbol we have already encoded will be found in running text. Accordingly, some leeway needs to be given. Many named symbols, to me, have their own lives and are stronger candidates than things we already have encoded. What *is* the deal with U+2621 CAUTION SIGN? I guess it's supposed to look like a bend in the road or something, but I've surely never seen it. U+2668 HOT SPRINGS is pleasant, but it's a lot less motivated -- to my mind -- than the DO NOT LITTER SIGN. Symbols are complex. I'm not afraid of encoding some more of them, and I've sucessfully helped to encoded a number of them over the past couple of years. Neither do I want to encode everything in every symbol font ever made, though. Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of things. In text? I've seen it on flags, on license plates, on heraldic crests, but can't recall seeing it in text. I don't have access to a Scout manual here ;-) I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case and the five characters were accepted. So, this isn't a new proposal? These characters have already been accepted? (If so, that's fine.) It's a revision because there was a bug with some of the sample illustrations. It also differs from its previous version in that it gives new proposed code positions which reflect UTC input. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson wrote as follows. I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case and the five characters were accepted. This raises an interesting matter. In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693. However, what is the correct approach? Is it that the characters must remain either unimplemented or else implemented as Private Use Area characters until Unicode 4.1 or whatever is published, notwithstanding that the hardcopy Unicode 4.0 book is not yet available? That will probably take quite some time. It appears to me that there should be some system devised so that when a few extra symbols are accepted into an already established area that those characters can be implemented in a proper manner much more quickly than at present. However, such speeding up of the process might not always be a benefit. For example, the proposed U+267F which has, in the document the name HANDICAPPED SIGN could, if there were a fast track process, be all the more quickly incorporated into databases as a way for officials to make automated decisions about people much more conveniently without considering the individual circumstances of each person so tagged. I am rather concerned that the name HANDICAPPED SIGN is being used without any jusitication or discussion of the name of the character. The character has now been accepted it appears. I am rather concerned about the Orwellian nightmare possibilities of this and believe that vigilance is a necessary activity to protect freedom. Just think, data about someone can be expressed with one character which can be sent around the world to be stored in a database which is not necessarily in a jurisdiction which has laws about data protection. Automated decision making is a matter covered by United Kingdom data protection law, yet does the law have any effect in practice? For example, some credit card application documents now have in the small print items about the applicant agreeing to accept automated decisions. And also, does every user of computer equipment obey the law? I gather that in the United States there is a concept of a Social Security number and that it has now become the widespread practice that people who are nothing to do with the administration of social security now routinely ask (and maybe even require) someone to state his or her social security number before they can do anything. I wonder what is the effect of saying that the number is for social security purposes and one is not willing to state what it is. Perhaps even questioning why that information is needed will go against one. The issue of the name for what Michael has named as HANDICAPPED SIGN needs, in my opinion, some discussion. If that discussion widens into what purposes for which Unicode could or should be used and whether the political and social implications of encoding symbols is something of which people should be aware, then fine. For example, would DISABILITY LOGO be a better name? I have seen the logo used in signs in shops with the message Happy to help referring to help for people with any disability where help is wanted, not just for people in wheelchairs. So having the logo in fonts so that such signs could be printed might well be helpful. Yet I feel that some discussion about the implications of encoding this logo need to take place, particularly as the N2586R document suggests as seemingly obvious the potential for use in databases. For example, could the sign be made as not to be interchanged? Is it best not to encode it in Unicode at all as being too dangerous in some of its potential applications? If this symbol is implemented without some protection for rights, could there be a basis for compensation by someone disadvantaged by the use of such a symbol in a database? An Orwellian nightmare scenario of just encoding the symbols and leaving it to people who use Unicode as to how they use the symbols is not attractive. William Overington 24 June 2003
Re: Revised N2586R
At 11:32 +0100 2003-06-24, William Overington wrote: It appears to me that there should be some system devised so that when a few extra symbols are accepted into an already established area that those characters can be implemented in a proper manner much more quickly than at present. No. The process we have works. I am rather concerned that the name HANDICAPPED SIGN is being used without any justification or discussion of the name of the character. The Name Police approved. ;-) I am rather concerned about the Orwellian nightmare possibilities of this and believe that vigilance is a necessary activity to protect freedom. Oh, spare us. For example, would DISABILITY LOGO be a better name? No. It isn't a logo. Other names for the symbol are WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL (1790 Google hits), DISABLED SYMBOL (652 hits), HANDICAPPED SYMBOL (619 hits), HANDICAPPED SIGN (565 hits),DISABLED SYMBOL (276 hits), WHEELCHAIR SIGN (253 hits). Regarding the last, one may note with some alarm http://www.spiralnature.com/entertain/wheelchair.html Likely WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL is a more accurate name. Yet I feel that some discussion about the implications of encoding this logo need to take place, particularly as the N2586R document suggests as seemingly obvious the potential for use in databases. For example, could the sign be made as not to be interchanged? Yes. Between the databases. For instance. Look, William, I' was saying that for instance, an Arizona number plate might be 643-KWH or it might be -577E where the stands for the wheelchair. I suggested that the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles might wish to include this character in computer databases. It seemed to me that the use of the hyphen in the example was proof that the symbol could be used in text. There is a DISABILITY SYMBOL http://www.mdx.ac.uk/awards/disable.htm which is different; it's called the TWO TICKS SYMBOL as well. An Orwellian nightmare scenario of just encoding the symbols and leaving it to people who use Unicode as to how they use the symbols is not attractive. Rein in those hares, William, please. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding the last, one may note with some alarm http://www.spiralnature.com/entertain/wheelchair.html Seriously, it seems that the HANDICAPPED / DISABLED/ WHEELCHAIR SIGN may be copyright in some countries. Please see http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp1/newdocs/wp19925.pdf where this is mentioned. - Chris
Re: Revised N2586R
At 13:09 +0100 2003-06-24, Christopher John Fynn wrote: Seriously, it seems that the HANDICAPPED / DISABLED/ WHEELCHAIR SIGN may be copyright in some countries. Your point? Please see http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp1/newdocs/wp19925.pdf where this is mentioned. I do not think that it is in anyone's interests to dig into this. The WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL has many glyph variants by now, and is certainly worth encoding in the Unicode Standard. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
U+2668 HOT SPRINGS is pleasant, but it's a lot less motivated -- to my mind -- than the DO NOT LITTER SIGN. Huh? The Hotspring sign appears in running text all the time -- in Japanese travel brochures, for example. I've never seen the do-not-litter sign in running text like that. Rick
Re: Revised N2586R
William O wrote... In that the document proposes U+2693 for FLEUR-DE-LIS it would seem not unreasonable for fontmakers now to be able to produce fonts having a FLEUR-DE-LIS glyph at U+2693. Not quite yet. It's not that stable. You should look at the WG2 processes and stages of encoding. Docs available on the WG2 web site somewhere, I'm sure. It's also in the Unicode pipeline, or will be soon, and its stage will be shown there. Go from here: http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Pipeline.html to the caution statement here: http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Caution.html I am rather concerned that the name HANDICAPPED SIGN is being used without any jusitication or discussion of the name of the character. The character has now been accepted it appears. Presumably you meant justification... It's a good point, but not every character name gets put out on the Unicode mail list for the general public to vote on. If you want to get in on such detailed discussion as names for characters that are coming up for consideration, you should join the consortium and vote. Or, presuming you are still in the UK, you could get involved in the British standards body and WG2. Rick
Re: Revised N2586R
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:30 PM, Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: U+2668 HOT SPRINGS is pleasant, but it's a lot less motivated -- to my mind -- than the DO NOT LITTER SIGN. Huh? The Hotspring sign appears in running text all the time -- in Japanese travel brochures, for example. I've never seen the do-not-litter sign in running text like that. Rick I's remarkable to see that many symbols have been accepted and incorporated for ideographic languages which use them everyday even if they have no textual meaning, just as decorations, and we cannot accept a similar pictography or symbolism for alphabetized languages, as if it was not part of their cultural needs, and even if those symbols are widely recognized and understood, sometimes with a long history (for example the fleur-de-lys, or ermine)... The objection that they may carry some opinions seems strange when we already see a lot of religious symbols like christian crosses, islamic crescent of moons, traditional zodiacal symbols, ... As long as the symbol has some long history of cultural attachment and lots of publication, and already support a lot of recognizable variants, with known semantics; restricting their use only as images and not as text is not reasonnable. Howeer we can select some good criters to see if they should be encoded: - is there a reasonnably large population that recognize it? - can it be used free of rights by any writer or publisher? - is the symbol recognizable with a minimum common semantic with distinct colors or glyph variants or decorations ? - if the symbol has several semantics, depending on the people that use them (domain of activity, national cultures), do they still support in each context the same variations of their glyph representation or colors and textures ? - is it already encoded in a representation of another language ? (need to look in ideographic pictographs...) -- Philippe.
Re: Revised N2586R
It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference. It would be similar to these kinds of samples if I were to create a proposal using as a sample the Phonetic Symbol Guide, but that might not clearly show if a character was something that was merely proposed by someone at one time but never actually used -- in such a case, taking a sample from Phonetic Symbol Guide does not really demonstrate the need to encode as a character for text representation. Likewise, the sample for (e.g.) the fleur-de-lis doesn't really provide a case that this should be a character to facilitate representation in text. It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think we'd want to encode the US flag as a character. I'm not saying that I oppose the proposed characters; just that samples of a different nature would make for a stronger case. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
(reminded of a South Park Episode... the spelling bee in Hooked on Monkey Phonics) excerpt: - MAYOR: Here we go - kroxldyphivc. KYLE: What?!? MAYOR: kroxldyphivc. KYLE: Definition? MAYOR: Something which has a kroxldyph-like quality. KYLE: Uh, could you use it in a sentence? MAYOR: Certainly -- 'Kroxldyphivc' is a hard word to spell. - Of course, with a definition and usage example like that, its no wonder Kyle messed up the word and lost the spelling bee. :-) MichKa - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Revised N2586R It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference. It would be similar to these kinds of samples if I were to create a proposal using as a sample the Phonetic Symbol Guide, but that might not clearly show if a character was something that was merely proposed by someone at one time but never actually used -- in such a case, taking a sample from Phonetic Symbol Guide does not really demonstrate the need to encode as a character for text representation. Likewise, the sample for (e.g.) the fleur-de-lis doesn't really provide a case that this should be a character to facilitate representation in text. It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think we'd want to encode the US flag as a character. I'm not saying that I oppose the proposed characters; just that samples of a different nature would make for a stronger case. - Peter -- - Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Re: Revised N2586R
At 01:07 -0500 2003-06-23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me the proposal would present a stronger case if samples were available that were something *other* than an explanation of the symbol in a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other reference. Possibly, but there is only so much time in the day, and I certainly did a better job than Mark Davis did with L2/02-361. :-( (UTC, please take this as a formal protest at the action taken to approve the addition of characters based on a document as flimsy as that one. Bad UTC. No biscuit!) It would be similar to these kinds of samples if I were to create a proposal using as a sample the Phonetic Symbol Guide, but that might not clearly show if a character was something that was merely proposed by someone at one time but never actually used -- in such a case, taking a sample from Phonetic Symbol Guide does not really demonstrate the need to encode as a character for text representation. I tend to disagree. Symbols have a very different nature than phonetic characters do. We have *all* seen the atom sign, and I have, as Liungman points out, seen it on maps, though I don't seem to have such a map here in the house. Similarly, the fleur-de-lis is a well-known named symbol which can be used to represent a number of things. Likewise, the sample for (e.g.) the fleur-de-lis doesn't really provide a case that this should be a character to facilitate representation in text. Of course these can be considered to be dingbats, as many symbols are. When I look at the set of dingbats and symbols in the Standard, I find that there some odd omissions. The gender symbols for instance that I proposed in N2587, and a set of religious symbols which I'm preparing in another document. More dictionary symbols like the SHAMROCK. And so on. It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think we'd want to encode the US flag as a character. That would be a logo. I'm not saying that I oppose the proposed characters; just that samples of a different nature would make for a stronger case. I do the best I can. At the end of the day my document won its case and the five characters were accepted. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
On Monday, June 23, 2003 2:54 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It wouldn't be hard to provide a comparable descriptive paragraph that began with an image of the Stars and Stripes, but I don't think we'd want to encode the US flag as a character. That would be a logo. Most probably not: such an image of a country flag without its colors is not meaningful, this is just a form, a contour, which, if assigned to a character with a representative glyph, could be colored with yellow and red stripes, and would not have the semantic of the same flag, or could be seen as a caricature. All flags are meaningful only with a minimum of recognizable colors which have an history and meaning. Some logos too, but not all. Also a flag can be exposed by people mostly at will under some conditions attached to respect. A logo is copyrighted and is a piece of art with a owner that has some exclusive rights on it, like glyphs in a font (in most countries except glyphs created in US). So a flag is really a colored image, not a logo, not a glyph and thus not a character either... Even its proportions and design are well defined, unlike many glyphs associated to characters, which accept a lot of variations without loosing their character semantic. On the opposite, a Christian Cross or a Muslum Moon, qualifies as a character, because a representative glyph will accept many variations, without loosing its meaning as a religious symbol. Same thing for common symbols encodable as characters like a heart symbol for card games, a king symbol for chess, etc... These symbols represent real concepts that may have corresponding words when used in a sentence, and used in various languages (so they can be part of a formal script). On the opposite, the various forms of bullets or arrows in Dingbats, are probably excessive, as they can be swapped without loosing their semantic. These should have been unified as characters, with possible glyph variants. -- Philippe.
Re: Revised N2586R
At 14:03 -0400 2003-06-23, John M. Fiscella wrote: And don't forget the 'radura'. The radura is to the food industry as the 'biohazard' is to medical industry. Jeepers. Yet the comments on proposing the radura by various UTC members were negative. And it isn't a logo. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/rad/radura.html http://www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/EPA-radura.cfm http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/40-html/0462.html http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Irradiation_Q_A.htm Documents say mandated by the FDA -- is it actually international? I don't believe I have ever seen it. Can you, heh heh, buy something with it on it and scan us a sample of it in use? Does the FDA or anyone distribute a font with this symbol in it? Radura is Italian for a 'glade' or 'clearing' for what that is worth. Depending on answers to the above, I would certainly consider popping the RADURA into a bucket with the DO NOT LITTER SIGN. (It still irritates me that Ken vetoed that one. I see it *everywhere* on packaging from more and more countries.) -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
As a point of interest there does not seem to be a single standardized HALAL SYMBOL though there is rather a lot of discussion about having one. I googled halal logo. I also looked for pork logo. Not much turned up, though there was a PDF from the Irish Bord Bia (Food Board) which mentioned some sort of Irish pork logo. I have never seen it. There doesn't seem to be an international Warning! Contains Pork! symbol. There doesn't seem to be a NUT SYMBOL used to warn that products contain nuts, though there are many, many references to Sainsbury's (a British supermarket chain) labelling their peanuts Warning: Contains Nuts. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
And don't forget the 'radura'. The radura is to the food industry as the 'biohazard' is to medical industry. Yet the comments on proposing the radura by various UTC members were negative. And it isn't a logo. Interesting. I haven't noticed this symbol in use, and I do buy food. And none of the examples I looked at had it used in running text. Rick - Warning! This warning message contains text! -
Re: Revised N2586R
On Monday, June 23, 2003 10:17 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There doesn't seem to be a NUT SYMBOL used to warn that products contain nuts, though there are many, many references to Sainsbury's (a British supermarket chain) labelling their peanuts Warning: Contains Nuts. What about the many symbols used to signal how clothes can be cleaned, or various warning signs on some products to signal the presence of a potentially dangerous component, or some risk like electric shocks, possible exposition to dangerous radiations, or the many logos use to label quality products or signal its origin, or for content rating labels used in various countries, or to markup phone numbers to some value-added services ? All these should be part of logo libraries, even if they are sometimes supported by custom fonts, only to ease their reuse on similar products. If we continue, we will find requests to standardize symbols for signalization on roads, waters, or railways. And then why not assignments for individual country codes or language codes used to annotate a text? why not then assignments for the many decorative bullets used in various publications? It's true that Windows has such fonts: Marlett (for the GUI interface symbols on window buttons), Wingdings and Webdings. But do they need a standardization as they appear isolately. All this is not needed for plain-text, but only in rich-text formats with additional markup for the layout or inclusion of logos and images, or with layout construction libraries. -- Philippe.
Re: Revised N2586R
According to http://www.fas.usda.gov/GainFiles/200010/30678316.pdf, Indonesia requires the radura in packaging. Apparently, it also requires some sort of pig-logo to warn if a product contains swine derivatives. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Revised N2586R
At 23:33 +0200 2003-06-23, Philippe Verdy wrote: What about the many symbols used to signal how clothes can be cleaned, A well-defined semantic set that I think deserves encoding. :-) or various warning signs on some products to signal the presence of a potentially dangerous component, or some risk like electric shocks, possible exposition to dangerous radiations, Most of these are already encoded. or the many logos use to label quality products or signal its origin, or for content rating labels used in various countries, or to markup phone numbers to some value-added services ? I don't know what you mean. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Wash Symbols and Iconography (was Re: Revised N2586R)
At 23:33 +0200 2003-06-23, Philippe Verdy wrote: What about the many symbols used to signal how clothes can be cleaned, And Michael Everson responded: A well-defined semantic set that I think deserves encoding. :-) If what you mean is: http://www.waschsymbole.de/en/index.html then some of those are *already* representable using currently encoded symbols: U+24B6 CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A = dry clean with all standard methods U+24C5 CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P = dry clean with perchloro-ethylene U+24BB CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER F = dry clean with fluorine-solvent U+29BB CIRCLE WITH SUPERIMPOSED X = do not dry clean U+25B3 WHITE UP-POINTING TRIANGLE = bleaching allowed And delicate is the sequence 25CB, 0332, a large circle with an underscore. And so on. But as you can see if you visit that page, there is more than one standard for such icons -- a European standard and a Canadian standard. And for all we know, there might be others as well. The Canadian standard also color-codes the icons, which was one of Philippe's criteria for where these kinds of things clearly go over the line of what is appropriate for encoding as characters. And the sethood of a collection of arbitrary icons is not sufficient criterion for the characterhood. Just because a group of symbolphiles can investigate and come up with a collection of these things, and just because these things are *printed* on labels for clothing does not ipso facto make them characters, any more than the various symbols and logos related to food (and other) packaging. Look again at the icons listed above at that site. Clearly, as for many such symbologies which are supposed to communicate *WITHOUT* language, we have interesting little pictographic logics embedded in the symbols to convey meaning. For instance, a pictograph of a hand iron with one, two, or three dots inside, supposed to convey the degree of heat of the iron. Or washtub pictographs with digits in them to convey water temperature (in degrees Celsius), or with a pictograph of a hand inserted to indicate hand wash only. Such collections of icons are, generically, part of an ongoing process of the reintroduction of pictographs and (true) ideographs into writing, to solve commercial and regulatory issues of globalization. Pictographs proliferate across Europe because Europe the commercial and regulatory entity is becoming so multilingual that it is utterly unwieldy to require warnings, labels, and other important captions (and even instructions) in language-specific writing. The alternative--to force everyone to use a dominant (or a few dominant) official languages--is not PC in Europe. Heck, it isn't even PC in the U.S., although it is almost official policy here. But the implication of this ongoing development needs to be *considered* by the character encoding committees -- not just be catered to, by accident, as it were, by merely encoding as characters whatever nice little set of iconic symbols happens to attract our attention this week. There is a serious question here regarding what is plain text content and what is this other stuff -- an ongoing evolution of iconic and pictographic symbols that are intentionally, by design, disanchored from any particular language, and are instead intended to convey *concepts* directly. I think we are at serious risk of getting it wrong if we just keep encoding sets of icons and pictographs as characters without clear evidence of their use *like* characters embedded in what is otherwise clearly plain text context. What is obvious is that all this stuff is in rapid ferment right now. Hundreds of agencies and organizations make these things up for all kinds of purposes, and which ones catch on and last and get used with text remains to be seen, in many instances. Further, looking a little more longterm, it is unclear where this stuff is headed over the next century. Will such symbols remain disjunct and be very product- or situation-specific, while turning over rapidly as technology or products or regulatory environments change? Will such symbols evolve towards a global, standardized, iconography-without-words, existing as a kind of universal visual sign language for the communication-impaired who don't share a common language? Will major existing writing systems evolve to incorporate more and more such symbols (either individually or globally) in a kind of mass reintroduction of pictographic and ideographic principles into writing systems? I don't know the answers to these questions. But I don't think that we should, as character encoding specialists, behave as if they don't matter for what we do. I don't think it is appropriate to just take a Gee whiz! Let's encode that cute set of symbols! approach to every list of these things that comes along, without considering more carefully what the Unicode Standard is for and how it is going to have to interact with these kinds of symbols in
Symbols and Iconography (was Re: Revised N2586R)
And how about: http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2 670,00.html http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2 669,00.html http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,8055,100300%257C2 668,00.html - Chris
Re: Revised N2586R
At 14:13 +0200 2003-06-22, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: There was some sort of corruption with the pictures in the version of N2586 which was on the server. It has thus been replaced with: http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2586r.pdf Best regards Keld -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
