If it’s a symbol / pictograph, then UTC will want to be convinced that it’s needed/appropriate for use in running text. There are lots of symbols that get used in different kinds of presentation but that are not necessarily used in text. Depending on the symbol, it may or may not be obvious. It doesn’t hurt to include samples of attested usage in running text. But as Roozbeh says, you can float it first to get feedback on whether additional evidence is needed.
Peter From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Roozbeh Pournader Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 5:09 PM To: Ken Shirriff <ken.shirr...@gmail.com> Cc: Unicode Public <unicode@unicode.org> Subject: Re: Running text requirement? In my experience, no such requirement is a binary yes/no. If you have a good character candidate, run it by the list, or just write a proposal. UTC tends to look at all the merits together, instead of a list of things that should all be there or else there won't be a character. On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Ken Shirriff <ken.shirr...@gmail.com<mailto:ken.shirr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Someone asked me about the requirement for evidence that proposed new characters are used in running text. I thought it was in the Symbol Guidelines (http://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html) or the Character Proposals document (http://unicode.org/pending/proposals.html) but it's not there. Is there a written requirement for running text somewhere or is it "tradition"? Ken
