resending mails that were not sent correctly.
-- 轉寄的郵件 --
寄件者：gfb hjjhjh c933...@gmail.com
日期：2015年7月7日 下午4:30
主旨：Re: Stationary vs. waving flags (was: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode)
收件者： unic...@unicode.prg
副本：
How about transparent flag?
2015年7月7日 上午4:24於 Leonardo Boiko
gfb hjjhjh c933103 at gmail dot com wrote:
I think a waving white flag is an emoji symbol for
truce/surrender/come in peace, whereas a white rectangle doesn't
easily transmit the same idea.
How about transparent flag?
I'm still not convinced this is a problem that needs to be solved. A
Disclaimer: These are only suggestions. I've never submitted a character
proposal. You should prefer the advice of people who have, or of UTC
members who evaluate proposals.
Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia dot org wrote:
Previously in this thread, it was suggested that I make a formal
proposal
As I recall, António Martins-Tuválkin and Anshuman Pandey both submitted
proposals on this subject in 2007 or 2008 and in 2012 respectively.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Thanks Doug. That's very helpful.
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 at 17:07 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Disclaimer: These are only suggestions. I've never submitted a character
proposal. You should prefer the advice of people who have, or of UTC
members who evaluate proposals.
Noah Slater nslater
I never said anything about stability of geopolitical entities. I only
mentioned stability of encoded character sequences.
Peter
From: Ken Whistler [mailto:kenwhist...@att.net]
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG
On Jul 7, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Richard Cook rsc...@wenlin.com wrote:
Ken Whistler wrote:
vexillology
Garth Wallace wrote:
Tangentially, I recently ran across something called International
Flag Identification Symbols. It's a symbolic notation for vexillology
that describes their use of
Ken Whistler wrote:
vexillology
Garth Wallace wrote:
Tangentially, I recently ran across something called International
Flag Identification Symbols. It's a symbolic notation for vexillology
that describes their use of flags and some aspects of their design but
not enough to reproduce
On 7/6/2015 9:42 AM, Steve Swales
wrote:
Or a flag inversion modifier… recently I discovered that the Philippines flag, for example, has a special meaning (we are at war) when inverted. Just a thought.
Rather than modifiers, I think a more natural
Leonardo Boiko leoboiko at namakajiri dot net wrote:
Is it your belief that users who wish to display an emoji flag care
whether the flag is shown stationary versus flapping in the wind?
I think a waving white flag is an emoji symbol for
truce/surrender/come in peace, whereas a white
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Asmus Freytag (t)
asmus-...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On 7/6/2015 9:42 AM, Steve Swales wrote:
Or a flag inversion modifier… recently I discovered that the Philippines
flag, for example, has a special meaning (we are at war) when inverted.
Just a thought.
Rather
Steve Swales steve at swales dot us wrote:
Or a flag inversion modifier… recently I discovered that the
Philippines flag, for example, has a special meaning (we are at war)
when inverted. Just a thought.
An inverted ensign on a ship was formerly used as a distress signal:
Asmus Freytag (t) asmus dash inc at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
Rather than modifiers, I think a more natural thing would be to have
different base characters that reflect whether it's a flag, a pennant,
waving, flying from a flag stock or whatever other variety.
Base characters could be
2015-07-06 17:11 GMT-03:00 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org:
Is it your belief that users who wish to display an emoji flag care
whether the flag is shown stationary versus flapping in the wind?
I think a waving white flag is an emoji symbol for
truce/surrender/come in peace, whereas a white
Or a flag inversion modifier… recently I discovered that the Philippines flag,
for example, has a special meaning (we are at war) when inverted. Just a
thought.
-steve
On Jul 1, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
dzo at bisharat dot net wrote:
Whatever notation that
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
I wrote:
I hear Asmus's concern about using WAVING WHITE FLAG as the base
character for emoji flags which might not be depicted as waving.
I suppose there's no particular reason why U+2690 can't be the base
character
Previously in this thread, it was suggested that I make a formal proposal
to the UTC. I have held back from doing this because it's not at all clear
what implementation I should be proposing, or whether I can propose
something WITHOUT an implementation. (Some advise there would be handy!)
Should
I wrote:
I hear Asmus's concern about using WAVING WHITE FLAG as the base
character for emoji flags which might not be depicted as waving.
I suppose there's no particular reason why U+2690 can't be the base
character instead.
But then Garth Wallace gwalla at gmail dot com wrote:
I'm
On 7/6/2015 8:26 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
In that case I think a new registry mechanism might in fact make sense
-- and I have spelled out details of how one could reasonably work in
conjunction with the extended flag tag proposal in feedback
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
Incidentally, back to the ostensible topic of this thread -- I don't
think the extended flag tag proposal currently addresses the issue
of how to represent a pictograph for a rainbow flag.
It doesn't.
In that case I think a new registry
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
On the other hand, it might make sense to wait and see if it gains any
traction when the UTC meets later this month and considers all of the
feedback on the extended flag tag PRI #299 proposal together. If the
concept of a Unicode flag pictograph
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
But the current RIS pair mechanism for representing flag pictographs
for countries is already workable -- it works and is widely deployed
and widely used -- without having guarantees that some particular
country may not decide tomorrow to change
On 7/2/2015 5:56 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
Erkki, in this case, I think Philippe is making valid points.
-For the proposal to be workable requires some means of ensuring
stability of encoded representations. The way this would be done would
be for CLDR to provide data with all valid
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Leo Broukhis leob at mailcom dot com wrote:
What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use default-
ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd like
to see something informative, albeit not
On 7/3/2015 12:50 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Leo Broukhis leob at mailcom dot com wrote:
What I don't like about PRI #399 is its
proposing to use default-
ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd
like
Leo Broukhis leob at mailcom dot com wrote:
What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use default-
ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd like
to see something informative, albeit not resembling a flag, but
indicative of the intention to display a flag, like
The political subject is immediately related to the designation of flags
and their association to ISO 3166-1 and -2 encoded entities. Even if you
don't like it, this is very political and for a standard seeking for
stability, I wonder how any flag (directly bound to specific political
entities at
Noah Slater wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Philippe's core argument is
that geopolitical entities and flags (as a specific instances of a
design, in the heraldic sense) are disjoint. And that using
geopolitical codes to refer to these designs is inherently unstable.
But the
I wrote:
But the only alternative is to encode about 200 discrete emoji [...]
Here I am assuming that UTC will not shift gears and approve an
embedded URI scheme, which sounds way too much like localizable
you-know-whats.
--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO
Ok. I wasn't clear enough. Certainly boundaries are political and relevant,
as is the fact that they change. What is not relevant is talking about
particular country's motivations and actions.
Moreover, you insist about writing a tome about this. In other words, TL;DR.
Mark
I cannot but agree with Mark! Thus, please…
Sincerely, Erkki
Lähettäjä: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] Puolesta Philippe Verdy
Lähetetty: 2. heinäkuuta 2015 12:02
Vastaanottaja: Mark Davis ☕️
Kopio: Doug Ewell; Unicode Mailing List
Aihe: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode
It was not just about it but on the fact that nothing is solved and for
things that Unicode does not want to support, there should be a better way
using existing standards to bind some object with semantics taken from a
blind but easily parsable object (here an URI ,without the need to reinvent
a
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Philippe's core argument is that
geopolitical entities and flags (as a specific instances of a design, in
the heraldic sense) are disjoint. And that using geopolitical codes to
refer to these designs is inherently unstable.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 at 13:26
:42 PM
To: verd...@wanadoo.fr; 'Mark Davis ☕️'
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'Unicode Mailing List'
Subject: VS: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types
of Flags)
I cannot but agree with Mark! Thus, please…
Sincerely, Erkki
Lähettäjä: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org
Again, that has no advantage over PUA characters. Carriers/vendors can
*already* add whatever PUA characters they want to fonts and keyboards. But
of course, the problem is interoperability; you send a flag to a friend for
your favorite vacation spot, Florida, and the friend sees a flag for New
With extensible self-delimited regional indicator sequences the
carriers will be able to come to an agreement and to petition Unicode
to register them as named character sequences symbolizing flags not
encoded by an ISO entity, like various rainbow flags, making sure that
the format of such
To add some information that people like Noah may not be aware of:
This email list is an open, public list for arbitrary discussions about
Unicode and software internationalization. It is *not* an email list for
consortium business—the vast majority of the people on it are *not* members
of the
On 7/2/2015 2:01 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The frozen status of Antarctica ...
... will be addressed separately by global warming. But be that as it may...
In really there's still no standard way to encode flags unambiguously
and in a stable way. We'd like to have FOTW (Flags of the
As I read, should those flag be versioned when being use?As the curremt
implementation sound like those flag would change all over the time, and if
people using the emoticon with country X's flag on it to show support for
its current government, once the government have been overthrown and the
Leo Broukhis leob at mailcom dot com wrote:
With extensible self-delimited regional indicator sequences the
carriers will be able to come to an agreement and to petition Unicode
to register them as named character sequences symbolizing flags not
encoded by an ISO entity, like various rainbow
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
The UTC is neither responsible for nor interested in a standard way
to encode flags unambiguously.
[...]
The Unicode Standard is not a vexillology standard -- nor will it ever
be. It is a standard for the encoding and interchange of
On 7/2/2015 12:33 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
If REGIONAL INDICATOR DASH and REGIONAL INDICATOR digits are added,
along with regional supplementary symbols, then sequences
RISRISRIDRSS*RIS can be parsed unambiguously as ISO 3166-2,
whereas RISRSS+RIS can be parsed as a named sequence signifying
a
Currently a sequence of regional indicator symbols is parsed
unambiguously by greedily taking pairs of RIS chars and interpreting
them as ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 codes.
If REGIONAL INDICATOR DASH and REGIONAL INDICATOR digits are added,
along with regional supplementary symbols, then sequences
What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use
default-ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd
like to see something informative, albeit not resembling a flag, but
indicative of the intention to display a flag, like RIS can be, as
opposed to nondescript white
gfb hjjhjh c933103 at gmail dot com wrote:
As I read, should those flag be versioned when being use?As the
curremt implementation sound like those flag would change all over the
time, and if people using the emoticon with country X's flag on it to
show support for its current government, once
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
The UTC is neither responsible for nor interested in a standard way
to encode flags unambiguously.
[...]
The Unicode Standard is not a vexillology standard -- nor will it ever
http://unicode.org/announcements/flag-snippets.jpgThe UTC is considering
a proposal to extend the types of flags which can be reliably represented
by certain sequences of Unicode characters. In addition to the current
mechanism using pairs of regional indicator symbols—already widely
I oppose this proposal for the simple reason that it thinks hyphen
separations are not necessary. Possibly true today but there will be
extensions in some future needing more than 2 letters or 3 digits in the
primary subtag. even for iso 3166-2 the regional subtags are very likely
to change and
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
Can someone help me understand what this means for my rainbow flag
proposal?
AFAIK, it's not going to have any effect on what you're proposing. This is
a mechanism for flags of sub-regions with ISO 3166-2 codes; e.g. US
Shervin Afshar shervinafshar at gmail dot com wrote:
This is a mechanism for flags of sub-regions with ISO 3166-2 codes;
e.g. US States, countries and provinces of the UK, Tibet, etc.
The Tibet Autonomous Region (CN-54), like other regions in China except
Hong Kong and Macao, has no official
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
The Tibet Autonomous Region (CN-54), like other regions in China except
Hong Kong and Macao, has no official flag.
Although this is what some users might expect, implementing or
interpreting [flag]CN54 as the snow-lion
Thanks Doug.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 17:45 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
In other, other words, something like [flag]LGBT should be a
non-starter.
Followed until this bit. Why would it be a non-starter?
If you are still suggesting a single character, this thread doesn't
affect that
-
From: Ken Whistler kenwhist...@att.net
Sender: Unicode unicode-boun...@unicode.orgDate: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:50:20
To: Noah Slaternsla...@tumbolia.org
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode
Noah,
Additional information you should have is that the UTC is about to
publish
Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia dot org wrote:
In other, other words, something like [flag]LGBT should be a
non-starter.
Followed until this bit. Why would it be a non-starter?
First, because under the proposal described in the PRI, it would
unequivocally stand for region LG, subdivision BT.
Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia dot org wrote:
Can someone help me understand what this means for my rainbow flag
proposal?
You may want to go back and read Ken Whistler's suggestion from Monday:
I suggest that this thread about the RAINBOW FLAG be
directed to the soon-to-be-posted Public
Can someone help me understand what this means for my rainbow flag proposal?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 10:02 Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
I oppose this proposal for the simple reason that it thinks hyphen
separations are not necessary. Possibly true today but there will be
extensions
dzo at bisharat dot net wrote:
Whatever notation that might be added to whatever decision is
ultimately made on this should probably mention historic use of the
rainbow flag by the peace movement. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_flag#Rainbow_flag
The colors of the
*Please take political discussions elsewhere; they do not belong on this
list.*
The point about the boundaries of regions changing over time, and flags
being associated with a former set of boundaries could have been made in a
few sentences. Not only would it have avoided politics, it would have
And today's Chinese province ofTibet is different from the historic Tibet,
as China incorporated other surrounding areas, including some parts taken
from Bhutan (a small part around Legaru, and a larger part to the North)
and India (some parts to the West from states of Jammu and Kashmir, which
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Richard Cook rsc...@wenlin.com wrote:
Ken,
I know that U+1F308 is RAINBOW ... because my nameslist lookup tool tells
me so ...
TCUTF-8Codepoint : Name : Annotations1[image: ]C2_A01F308 RAINBOW
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Richard Cook rsc...@wenlin.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Garth Wallace gwa...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think display of U+1F308 as a rainbow flag would be expected
behavior. It risks turning a text like It's a beautiful day! [image: ]
into a
On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Garth Wallace gwa...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think display of U+1F308 as a rainbow flag would be expected
behavior. It risks turning a text like It's a beautiful day! into a
political statement.
Garth,
Any statement can be a political statement, in the
2015年6月30日 上午8:53於 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org寫道：
On 29 June 2015 at 20:04, gfb hjjhjh c933...@gmail.com wrote:
As an outsider, In my opinion, it is very common for people to write
sentences like Really sorry! or let's meet there tomorroe or The is
tasty even before unicode's
I already did, in my original mail!
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 21:12 gfb hjjhjh c933...@gmail.com wrote:
2015年6月30日 上午8:53於 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org寫道：
On 29 June 2015 at 20:04, gfb hjjhjh c933...@gmail.com wrote:
As an outsider, In my opinion, it is very common for people to
Noah,
Additional information you should have is that the UTC is about to
publish a new Public Review Issue on the topic of an extended mechanism
for the representation of more flag emoji with sequences of tag characters.
(Note: *not* representation as encoded single character symbols.)
That
Ken,
I know that U+1F308 is RAINBOW ... because my nameslist lookup tool tells me so
...
T C UTF-8 Codepoint : Name : Annotations
1 C2_A0 1F308 RAINBOW
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~rscook/cgi/nameslistsearch.html
... but could also be a 'rainbow (flag)'?
Thanks for the reply, Ken! Comments inline.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 at 15:50 Ken Whistler kenwhist...@att.net wrote:
There is no effective end to the or otherwise case for flags as symbols,
and that is why they are generally not amenable to representation by
encoded characters.
Well. Arguably,
2015年6月30日 上午1:13於 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.orgwrote：
Thanks for the reply, Ken! Comments inline.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 at 15:50 Ken Whistler kenwhist...@att.net wrote:
There is no effective end to the or otherwise case for flags as
symbols, and that is why they are generally not amenable
The way I see U+1F308 drawn in my browser (using the image linked from
Google in the HTML below), is that it represents a rainbow sat on two
clouds (not evident at small sizes to se that these are clouds as they just
look like blue open curves)
This is also strange because rainbows are normally
On 29 June 2015 at 20:04, gfb hjjhjh c933...@gmail.com wrote:
As an outsider, In my opinion, it is very common for people to write
sentences like [image: ] Really sorry! or [image: ] let's meet
there tomorroe or The [image: ] is tasty even before unicode's
introduction of these characters,
2015年6月28日 上午11:49於 Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr寫道：
2015-06-28 2:33 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org:
Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia dot org wrote:
I found this:
[...] the UTC does not wish to entertain further proposals for
encoding of symbol characters for flags, whether
Sorry to be a pain. I mentioned I looked up the minutes and couldn't find
anything apropos.
Could someone explain the rational behind 134-C2 and how it might apply to
the rainbow flag proposal ?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 at 20:04 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
More:
[...] the UTC does not
Noah Slater wrote:
Sorry to be a pain. I mentioned I looked up the minutes and couldn't
find anything apropos.
Could someone explain the rational behind 134-C2 and how it might
apply to the rainbow flag proposal ?
The following is informal and dilettante, since only a UTC officer can
give a
gfb hjjhjh c933103 at gmail dot com wrote:
Wouldn't the existence of Regional Indicator Symbols(=those flag
symbols) themselves avoided the need of adding new regional/national/
international flags already? and the 2013 addition do not add flag
themselves to the unicode, just some special form
More:
[...] the UTC does not wish to entertain further proposals for
encoding of symbol characters for flags, whether national, state,
regional, international, or otherwise. References to UTC Minutes:
[134-C2], January 28, 2013.
This is also why U+1F3C1 CHEQUERED FLAG doesn't set a precedent
Thanks for summarising that in an email, Doug.
I really wish they'd provided a justification for this statement! :) I
guess that this is the right list for a UTC officer to give some sort of
feedback.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 at 21:23 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Noah Slater wrote:
Sorry
QR is actually in the so called user-assigned area, so unlikely it will be
officially assigned, but also hard to standardize as anything in particular.
-steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 28 Jun 2015, at 23:02, Steve
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
On 28 Jun 2015, at 23:02, Steve Swales steve_at_swales.us wrote:
Another way the Pride Flag might be mapped into Unicode without
adding code points would be to use a REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL pair
corresponding to an unallocated ISO3166-1
Another way the Pride Flag might be mapped into Unicode without adding code
points would be to use a REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL pair corresponding to an
unallocated ISO3166-1 alpha-2 sequence. U+1F1F6 + U+1F1F7, for example, might
be an appropriate choice.
Sent from my iPhone
QR for... ? Queer Rainbow? :)
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 at 23:52 Steve Swales st...@swales.us wrote:
Another way the Pride Flag might be mapped into Unicode without adding
code points would be to use a REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL pair corresponding
to an unallocated ISO3166-1 alpha-2 sequence.
On 28 Jun 2015, at 23:02, Steve Swales st...@swales.us wrote:
Another way the Pride Flag might be mapped into Unicode without adding code
points would be to use a REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL pair corresponding to an
unallocated ISO3166-1 alpha-2 sequence. U+1F1F6 + U+1F1F7, for example,
Hello!
It is Pride Month and the US just legalised queer marriage in every state.
No better time to start a conversation about including the internationally
recognised rainbow flag in Unicode!
Here’s some background reading on the flag itself:
2015-06-27 19:26 GMT+02:00 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org:
c. Image distinctiveness: the rainbow flag is visually distinct.
Not so distinct from several other former rainbow flags used in South
America.
In fact the number of colours in the rainbow varies culturally depending on
countries,
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 19:49 Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
2015-06-27 19:26 GMT+02:00 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org:
c. Image distinctiveness: the rainbow flag is visually distinct.
Not so distinct from several other former rainbow flags used in South
America.
In fact the
Nothing really needs to be added to Unicode; vendors could already use:
U+1F3F3, U+200D, U+1F308
WAVING WHITE FLAG, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, RAINBOW
credit to Shervin for the idea
Mark https://google.com/+MarkDavis
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Noah
Mark, are there any other instances of a ZERO WIDTH JOINER being used in
this way? (i.e. Outside of its intended use with Arabic and Indic scripts,
etc.) Please excuse my ignorance.
On 27 June 2015 at 20:06, Mark Davis ☕️ m...@macchiato.com wrote:
Nothing really needs to be added to Unicode;
A zero-width joiner between two spacing symbols does not mean that they
should overlap completely, even if it allows some limtied form of ligature
(but mostly for true letters or letter like symbols, such as between a long
dash and an arrow head to connect them together in a long arrow...)
Your
Take a look at http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/ for details.
Mark https://google.com/+MarkDavis
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote:
Mark, are there any other instances of a ZERO WIDTH JOINER being used in
this way?
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
A zero-width joiner between two spacing symbols does not mean that they
should overlap completely, even if it allows some limtied form of ligature
(but mostly for true letters or letter like symbols, such as between a
I think it's a bit of a stretch to propose that a rainbow flag is a white
flag and rainbow ligature. That's certainly well beyond any
understanding I have of what a ligature is, from a typographical
perspective.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 22:23 Pierpaolo Bernardi olopie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat,
No I had read it, the persons are still clearly separate. The rainbow on
the flag is not in fact a rainbow, only its colours.
The groups of persons are showing persons themselves, side by side, not one
into the other one or one indirectly drawn on the face of another one.
This new proposal of
On 28 June 2015 at 01:33, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
I think the phrase or otherwise above might have been intended to mean
or otherwise.
Perhaps. I'm hoping not.
I think there is a strong case for the inclusion of the symbol given that
Twitter (one of the largest electronic
Thanks to Philippe for the addition of technical arguments in favour of a
new code point. This is... a little beyond me. (Though fascinating
reading!) I would particularly like to add me +1 to the knock-on effect
this would have on downstream vendors. (I would like to see this become a
standard
Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia dot org wrote:
I found this:
[...] the UTC does not wish to entertain further proposals for
encoding of symbol characters for flags, whether national, state,
regional, international, or otherwise. References to UTC Minutes:
[134-C2], January 28, 2013.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why would associating a flag and a rainbow this way means the flag will
just be recolored (but the rainbox form itself is completely lost)?
Couldn't this be to display a flying flag over a sky with a rainbow?
Compare
Philippe and others,
You are missing the relevant parts of UTR #51. See:
• http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Multi_Person_Groupings
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Multi_Person_Groupings
• http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#ZWJ_Sequences
U+1F3F3, U+200D, U+2620
WAVING WHITE FLAG, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, SKULL AND CROSSBONES
Wanna this one, too :)
Konstantin
2015-06-27 23:06 GMT+04:00 Mark Davis ☕️ m...@macchiato.com:
Nothing really needs to be added to Unicode; vendors could already use:
[image: ]
U+1F3F3, U+200D, U+1F308
Actually,
U+1F3F4, U+200D, U+2620
WAVING BLACK FLAG, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, SKULL AND CROSSBONES
Konstantin
2015-06-28 1:46 GMT+04:00 Konstantin Ritt ritt...@gmail.com:
U+1F3F3, U+200D, U+2620
WAVING WHITE FLAG, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, SKULL AND CROSSBONES
Wanna this one, too :)
Konstantin
On 27 Jun 2015, at 22:46, Konstantin Ritt ritt...@gmail.com wrote:
U+1F3F3, U+200D, U+2620
WAVING WHITE FLAG, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, SKULL AND CROSSBONES
And thus the slippery slope is well and truly discovered.
Gosh, I wish we could add capital equivalents to all (or most of) the un-cased
This UTR just addresses the case of a combining coloring symbol for faces
and those color symbols were designed since the begining to be combined as
much as possible (and not meant to be used in isolation), this is not the
case of the rainbow symbol which is much more figurative).
Why would
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
