Re: Missing geometric shapes

Some web sites also use finer distinctions, with 1/4 and 3/4 stars etc. I suggest you use icons as usual. markus

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 6 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Markus Scherer wrote: > Some web sites also use finer distinctions, with 1/4 and 3/4 stars etc. Where have you seen those? > I suggest you use icons as usual. I'd expect you to make such a suggestion, but I'd encourage Jörg to collect examples of these in print and I

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/06/2012 03:55 PM, Michael Everson wrote: It would be convenient to be able to exchange such stars in plain text Convenience isn't what we base these decisions on, as we often find ourselves explaining to people with yet another "Wouldn't It Be Nice If" proposal. That said, I do think

Re: Missing geometric shapes

I have made a font with glyphs for the four stars. The font is available from the following forum thread. http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4028 I found two of the desired stars in regular Unicode. U+2605 BLACK STAR U+2606 WHITE STAR I added the other two glyphs into the plane 0

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Jörg Knappen: > > The reason is that I just was trying to show the rating on a webpage > using the popular of 1 to 5 starts including half-coloured starts just using > UNicode characters. > > BLACK AND WHITE STAR > WHITE AND BLACK STAR In Dingbats, characters are mostly coded for their appearanc

Re: Missing geometric shapes

In Dingbats, characters are mostly coded for their appearance, i.e. like you suggest. Would it be more useful to have some or all of the following, in a more semantic block? HIGHEST RATING * HIGHER RATING+ HIGH RATING MID-HIGH RATING ***+ MEDIUM RATING**

Re: Missing geometric shapes

> In Dingbats, characters are mostly coded for their appearance, i.e. like >> you suggest. Would it be more useful to have some or all of the following, >> in a more semantic block? >> >> HIGHEST RATING * >> HIGHER RATING+ >> HIGH RATING >> MID-HIGH RATING ***+ >>

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Le 07/11/12 20:08, Christoph Päper a écrit : Jörg Knappen: The reason is that I just was trying to show the rating on a webpage using the popular of 1 to 5 starts including half-coloured starts just using UNicode characters. BLACK AND WHITE STAR WHITE AND BLACK STAR In Dingbats, characters ar

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/07/2012 02:08 PM, Christoph Päper wrote: Jörg Knappen: The reason is that I just was trying to show the rating on a webpage using the popular of 1 to 5 starts including half-coloured starts just using UNicode characters. BLACK AND WHITE STAR WHITE AND BLACK STAR In Dingbats, characters a

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/7/2012 7:10 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: [Unicode is] a system for encoding what people write and print. Hear, hear! A./

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 2012-11-06 4:11 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: That said, I do think it would be reasonable and appropriate to encode the half-stars. There's no such thing as "plain text" on paper (everything in print is formatted somehow), but star ratings are really common in tables that contain nothing els

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 8 Nov 2012, at 03:10, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > We encode *characters*, glyphs that people use (yes, I know I conflated > glyphs and characters there.) There are many rating systems out there, yes, > but we also don't have to please everyone. I think half-stars see enough > in-print usage

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 8 Nov 2012, at 09:59, Simon Montagu wrote: > Please take into account that the half-stars should be symmetric-swapped in > RTL text. I attach an example from an advertisment for a movie published in > Haaretz 2 November 2012 I don't think Geometric Shapes have the mirror property. 2605;BL

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 2012/11/08 19:15, Michael Everson wrote: On 8 Nov 2012, at 09:59, Simon Montagu wrote: Please take into account that the half-stars should be symmetric-swapped in RTL text. I attach an example from an advertisment for a movie published in Haaretz 2 November 2012 I don't think Geometric

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Le 08/11/2012 09:47, Michael Everson a écrit : I agree, and will write a proposal if anyone cares to send me examples of in-print usage. (XKCD's handwritten chart kind of doesn't count…) Except that the simple fact that a well known satirical comics like XKCD includes these half-stars in this c

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/8/2012 2:27 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: On 2012/11/08 19:15, Michael Everson wrote: On 8 Nov 2012, at 09:59, Simon Montagu wrote: Please take into account that the half-stars should be symmetric-swapped in RTL text. I attach an example from an advertisment for a movie published in Haa

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Den 2012-11-08 14:34, skrev "Asmus Freytag" : > On 11/8/2012 2:27 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> On 2012/11/08 19:15, Michael Everson wrote: >>> On 8 Nov 2012, at 09:59, Simon Montagu wrote: >>> Please take into account that the half-stars should be symmetric-swapped in RTL text. I a

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 8 Nov 2012, at 22:54, Kent Karlsson wrote: 2605;BLACK STAR;So;0;ON;N; 2606;WHITE STAR;So;0;ON;N; > > The *chart* glyphs for these aren't same-sized (outer outline)… So? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/7 Jean-François Colson : > You missed > NEGLECTABLE RATING + > > NO RATING For this one, would it be a greyed star (meaning no info, N/A) or the existing WHITE STAR for the minimum rating (the maximum rating being the BLACK STAR) ? Usually, we see the high ratings displayed as multipl

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Den 2012-11-09 00:09, skrev "Michael Everson" : > On 8 Nov 2012, at 22:54, Kent Karlsson wrote: > > 2605;BLACK STAR;So;0;ON;N; > 2606;WHITE STAR;So;0;ON;N; >> >> The *chart* glyphs for these aren't same-sized (outer outline)Š > > So? It is quite common to fill up to

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/8/2012 3:40 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Usually, we see the high ratings displayed as multiple stars, that are either present or absent, but rarely half filled. Half filled stars are relatively common, whenever there are fractional star ratings possible. Stars are among the most common s

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/08/2012 05:54 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote: Well, define 3 (4?) brand new characters of g.c. Sm, and the "half" one(s) (and quarter ones, if those are included too) have the bidi mirrored property... There are plenty of g.c. Sm chars that are bidi mirrored. (E.g. 27E2-27E3, ⟢ ⟣ , which are four

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Den 2012-11-09 01:22, skrev "Asmus Freytag" : > On 11/8/2012 3:40 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: >> Usually, we see the high ratings displayed as multiple stars, that are >> either present or absent, but rarely half filled. > > Half filled stars are relatively common, whenever there are fractional >

RE: Missing geometric shapes

Mark E. Shoulson wrote: Mirroring tends to be done for glyphs that are used in *pairs*, open/close things and such. Not invariably; consider the integral and summation. They don't have mirrored counterparts and many other mathematical symbols don't either. Murray

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Mirroring tends to be done for glyphs that are used in *pairs*, open/close things and such. Not invariably; consider the integral and summation. They don't have mirrored counterparts and many other mathematical symbols don't either. The summation and integral signs are not used in pairs, but

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/8/2012 4:42 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote: Den 2012-11-09 01:22, skrev "Asmus Freytag" : On 11/8/2012 3:40 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Usually, we see the high ratings displayed as multiple stars, that are either present or absent, but rarely half filled. Half filled stars are relatively common

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/8/2012 4:53 PM, Murray Sargent wrote: Mark E. Shoulson wrote: Mirroring tends to be done for glyphs that are used in *pairs*, open/close things and such. Not invariably; consider the integral and summation. They don't have mirrored counterparts and many other mathematical symbols don't

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Le 09/11/12 00:40, Philippe Verdy a écrit : 2012/11/7 Jean-François Colson : You missed NEGLECTABLE RATING + NO RATING For this one, would it be a greyed star (meaning no info, N/A) or the existing WHITE STAR for the minimum rating (the maximum rating being the BLACK STAR) ? Simply a bl

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Should the original NO RATING be split into two different items, such as ZERO RATING and EMPTY RATING? Then 0/10 would be ZERO RATING, expressed as five white stars and EMPTY RATING could be expressed, if so desired, by something like five white circles, using five uses of a character such as U

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/9/2012 1:26 AM, Jean-François Colson wrote: For a five level rating, ○ ◔ ◑ ◕ ● could do the job. Yes it's possible to use other sets of symbols to indicate rating, but when it comes to such use of symbols Unicode would not encode the "semantic" of "rating" but that of "star". The deeper

Re: Missing geometric shapes

From:William_J_G Overington To: unicode@unicode.org Cc: wjgo_10...@btinternet.com Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012, 11:29 Subject: Re: Missing geometric shapes Should the original NO RATING be split into two different items, such as ZERO RATING and EMPTY RATING

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Why then stars ? Any symbol, even any Unicode letter could be repeated and half-filled. Even logos (I've seen Apple logos used this way) or pictograms (I've seen film rolls for cinema rating, or trumpets for rating music, or beds for rating hotels, or forks/spoons/knives for rating restaurants, or

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/9/2012 5:53 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Why then stars ? Any symbol, even any Unicode letter could be repeated and half-filled. There's nothing magical about limiting the half-filled geometrical shapes to the current (haphazard) set. If half-filled stars can be documented, they are legiti

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/10 Asmus Freytag : >> Even today, using the existing Unicode for the WHITE STAR character >> allows performing styling on it to render an empty, full, or partially >> filled star. > > There's clear precedent that Unicode views white/black/partially filled as a > distinction on the character

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Stephan Stiller (2012-11-07 21:35): >> >> HIGHEST RATING * >> HIGHER RATING+ >> HIGH RATING >> MID-HIGH RATING ***+ >> MEDIUM RATING*** >> MID-LOW RATING **+ >> LOW RATING ** >> LOWER RATING *+ >> LOWEST RATING* >> NO RATING >> >> This way fo

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Jean-François Colson (2012-11-09 10:26): > Le 09/11/12 00:40, Philippe Verdy a écrit : >> For this one, would it be a greyed star (meaning no info, N/A) or the >> existing WHITE STAR for the minimum rating (the maximum rating being >> the BLACK STAR) ? > Simply a black and white star. I intended N

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Comparative and superlatives are not comparable each other, so LOWER RATING and UPPER RATING dos not mean it is lower or upper than a medum rating. I would not accept these two meaningless names that are too much confusive, unless they are used to denote NOT absulte ratings but comparative ratings

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Personal opinions follow. It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. There *might* also be a case for the left-white, right-black star. Everything else, including one-quarter and three-quarter

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Le 11/11/2012 23:08, Doug Ewell a écrit : Personal opinions follow. It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. There *might* also be a case for the left-white, right-black star. What is missing

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Frédéric Grosshans wrote: There *might* also be a case for the left-white, right-black star. What is missing in the attachment of Simon Montagu's email http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2012-m11/0024.html to make it a convincing case for the left-white, right-black star ? Sorry, I

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/11/2012 2:08 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Personal opinions follow. It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. There *might* also be a case for the left-white, right-black star. Precedent is f

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/11/2012 3:01 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 11/11/2012 2:08 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Personal opinions follow. It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. There *might* also be a case for the l

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Den 2012-11-11 23:08, skrev "Doug Ewell" : > Personal opinions follow. > > It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd > strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. > There *might* also be a case for the left-white, right-black star. > > E

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Kent Karlsson > > rendering tomatoes or doughnuts or film reels as "glyph variants" of > > stars, > > They should certainly **NOT** be treated as glyph variants of stars! Ever! Who said that ? NOT me. If you think so, this is a misinterpretation in what I said that the number of way

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/11/2012 4:50 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/12 Kent Karlsson > > rendering tomatoes or doughnuts or film reels as "glyph variants" of > stars, They should certainly **NOT** be treated as glyph variants of stars! Ever! Who said that ?

Re: Missing geometric shapes

No, I was clear throughout, using the same arguments, that encoding things for the purpose of representing "empty", "full, "half filled" like if it was a nuemric gauge was a bad idea. When I spoke about the various represetnations of gauges (including with photos) it was just to demonstrate that t

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/11/2012 8:47 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: No, I was clear throughout, using the same arguments, that encoding things for the purpose of representing "empty", "full, "half filled" like if it was a nuemric gauge was a bad idea. Trying to encode a "gauge" is indeed a losing proposition. Whe

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > > > However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type > symbols, and, as I keep pointing out, they absolutely fall within the scope > of geometrical symbols for which there is ample precedent supporting both > plain text usage as well as a standardiz

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On the opposite, there's a consistant definition of some abstract characters that are still not encoded : the metal of medals in sports. These are reliably defined and well known since long thoughout the world. Why don't we have a GOLD MEDAL, SILVER MEDAL, and BRONZE MEDAL (some events are adding a

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type symbols, and, as I keep pointing out, they absolutely fall within the scope of geometrical symbols for whic

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Kent Karlsson: > Den 2012-11-11 23:08, skrev "Doug Ewell" : > >> or turning Unicode into a standard for rating systems in general, Using digits, it already covers that. > Here I agree. (Not sure why that branch of this tread is still ongoing...) Perhaps because today people usually write, in in

Re: Missing geometric shapes

Christoph Päper wrote: >> Here I agree. (Not sure why that branch of this tread is still >> ongoing...) > > Perhaps because today people usually write, in inline HTML[1], > something like > > > > instead of > > > > People use images in HTML for all kinds of things that don't translat

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > >> >> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type >> symbols, and, as I keep pointing out, they absolutely fall within the scope >> of geometrical symbols for which

Re: Missing geometric shapes

On 11/12/2012 10:13 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com>> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" t

Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > On 11/12/2012 10:13 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag > >> On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: >> >> 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag >> >>> >>> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type >>> symbols, and, as I keep

Re: Missing geometric shapes

In the business of character encoding, it's not helpful to try to construct algorithmic rules that lead from one set of conditions to the state of "encoded". It just doesn't work that way. What does work is to think of factors, or criteria, that you can use in weighing a question. Certain fact

Aw: Re: Missing geometric shapes

inimum surprise principle".--Jörg Knappen Gesendet: Donnerstag, 08. November 2012 um 11:15 Uhr Von: "Michael Everson" An: "Unicode Discussion" Betreff: Re: Missing geometric shapes On 8 Nov 2012, at 09:59, Simon Mon

Re: Missing geometric shapes (vertical text)

Le 11/11/12 23:25, Frédéric Grosshans a écrit : Le 11/11/2012 23:08, Doug Ewell a écrit : Personal opinions follow. It looks like the only actual use case we have, exemplified by the xkcd strip, is for a star with the left half black and the right half white. There *might* also be a case for

Re: Missing geometric shapes (vertical text)

Jean-François Colson wrote: > I wonder whether similar half-filled stars would be required for > vertically written text. > Would a star black above, white below, be required for vertically > written Japanese, Mongolian, Sutton, Tangut, Phags-pa, etc.? > Would a star white above, black below, be

Re: Missing geometric shapes (vertical text)

It is a good question when many of these pictograms (including basic geometric shapes) are coming from former CJK encodings, where vertical layout is common, AND the ideaphic composition square facilitates a lot their insertion (and it is the major reason why many emojis were highly developed there

The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

Michael Everson wrote: < ... collect examples of these in print ... Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > We don't encode "it would be nice/useful."  We encode *characters*, glyphs > that people use (yes, I know I conflated glyphs and characters there.) ...  > Unicode isn't a system for encoding ratings.

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington : > However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems in > being implemented as a widespread system. Wrong, this is what has been made during centuries if not millenium ! Initially a private use definition, which was not "encoded", but foun

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

One key criteris for inclusion in Unicode is that a character or symbol be in circulation. Whether these are hand written, printed or electronic. If one creates a new a new character then one first must get others to use it, this takes time. John On 8 Nov 2012 14:57, "William_J_G Overington" wrot

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

I'm not sure I follow this analysis. A./ On 11/8/2012 1:30 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington : However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems in being implemented as a widespread system. Wrong, this is what has been made during centuries i

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On 11/08/2012 01:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote: Michael Everson wrote: < ... collect examples of these in print ... Mark E. Shoulson wrote: We don't encode "it would be nice/useful." We encode *characters*, glyphs that people use (yes, I know I conflated glyphs and characters there.

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: On 11/08/2012 01:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote: Michael Everson wrote: < ... collect examples of these in print ... Mark E. Shoulson wrote: We don't encode "it would be nice/useful." We encode *characters*, glyphs that people use (yes, I

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On 11/08/2012 09:00 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: I stand by it: we don't encode what would be cool to have. We encode what people *use*. Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on expected usage. ... What these e

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

2012/11/9 Asmus Freytag : > Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on > expected usage. > Currency symbols are a well known case for that, but there have been > instances of phonetic characters encoded in order to facilitate creation and > publication of certain da

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On 11/9/2012 7:14 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2012/11/9 Asmus Freytag : Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on expected usage. Currency symbols are a well known case for that, but there have been instances of phonetic characters encoded in order to facilitate

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington> : > > However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems > > in being implemented as a widespread system. > Wrong, this is what has been made during centuries if not millenium ! Well

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is better than the alternative of not using the PUA. Regards John On 10 Nov 2012 17:37, "William_J_G Overington" wrote: > On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > > 2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington> : > > > Howeve

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

2012/11/10 john knightley : > Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is > better than the alternative of not using the PUA. > > Regards > John > > On 10 Nov 2012 17:37, "William_J_G Overington" > wrote: >> >> On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy wrote: >> >> >

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On Saturday 10 November 2012, John Knightley wrote: > Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is better > than the alternative of not using the PUA. Yes. The Private Use Area is a very useful facility in that it allows characters of one's own designation to be added

Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

William, I think you have a unreasonable idea of what a standard actually is. You have already made a standard and published it - I've seen all the posts at the FCP forum. All you have to do is let people use it. If a user community is going to exchange data, they will do so, and it just plain d