2015-10-05 21:32 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@att.net>: > > On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > >> I too am puzzled as to what DIS 10646 and C1 control pictures have to do >> with each other. >> >> > What an *excellent* cue to start a riff on arcane Unicode history! > > First, let me explain what I think Sean Leonard's concern here is. > > 1. On 10/4/2015 5:30 AM, Sean wrote: "I proposed adding C1 Control > Pictures to > Unicode. ... The requirement is that all glyphs for U+0000 - U+00FF be > graphically distinct." > > Ah, but Sean has noticed that of all the representative glyphs we have use > in the current code charts for C1 control codes, exactly *3* of them share > an odd glyph. U+0080, U+0081, and U+0099 use the same dotted box > with an "XXX" in it. That creates a conflict with the requirement that > Sean has stated for glyphs for *graphic symbols for* control codes, > presumably for addition the to 2400 Control Pictures block and some > extensions elsewhere, each with a visually distinct representation.
Good remark, but that does not mean that we really need to encode new code points for C1 control pictures. What is really needed is to change their representative glyph in charts: their dotted box should better include "0080", "0081" and "0099" in them rather than "XXX", if those C1 positions don't have any *agreed* ASCII-letters aliases (though their common abbreviations are listed in the English Wikipedia article as "PAD", "HOP", and "SGCI" respectively) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes Note this old L2 discussion note for their unspecified aliases by Ken Whistler: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11281-control-aliases.txt
