On 11/04/2016 05:02 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem. Unicode would not be
creating anything in Klingon anyway!
Well, to be fair, I thought IPR was the primary reason Unicode had never
encoded the Apple logo either. I doubt that whether Unicode intended to
use such a character themselves was a factor. (Of course, users who
really wanted that character encoded are probably using 🍎 or 🍏
now.)
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
The Apple logo is just that: a logo. Unicode is/used to be explicitly
NOT in the business of encoding logos, and only peripherally in the
business of encoding cute Wingdings and icons. pIqaD is an *alphabet*
for writing a *language*; that's a whole different situation, and one
that is squarely in what Unicode is all about doing. "Should" the Apple
logo have been encoded? Possibly, though there are a lot of reasons not
to which do not depend specifically on IP (we'd have to encode all the
other emblems of all the other computer companies also... not to mention
gasoline companies, cereal companies...) Should pIqaD be encoded? It is
my claim that it should, and that reasons not to are (mainly) limited to
IP considerations. In which case, IP considerations need to be
addressed, yes, but they should not pre-determine the decision of
whether or not it's worthy of inclusion.
~mark
