Philipp said: > The most obvious and simple example for glyph colours with semantic > meaning that I can think of appears to be encoding characters for > national flags (something that might even be considered proposable).
As *characters*? Why? What is this bug that people catch, which induces them to consider all things semiological to be, ipso facto, abstract characters suitable for encoding in Unicode? There are signs that are not characters. There are symbols that are not characters. There are icons that are not characters. There are significant gestures that are not characters. There are meaningful looks that are not characters. There are color significances that are not characters. There are pregnant pauses that are not characters... > And I'm quite positive that Aztec can safely considered "writing"... Aztec is clearly a language. Whether or not the Aztec codices are appropriate to represent in plain text remains to be seen. As yet, we have no proposal, let alone one which addresses the potential problems in detail. --Ken > > Philipp
