Thai unalom symbol

[Philippe Verdy]

These guidelines are quite old (1999). But even with these, I'm convinced
that the proposed symbol is OK for encoding, and that it should harmonize
with glyphs for letters of the Thai script.

The dictionary example is enough convincing for me, as it is hard to see
that just as an illustration. It is inserted within the text itself.

The local usage by the Red Cross is not convincing (used only as part as a
logo, even if the Red Cross uses also other religious symbols like the
Christian/Swiss cross, or the Islamic Moon Crescent, both being encoded as
characters too, in fact the Red Cross does not use these symbols alone, but
with define colors and within a rectangular area taking some extra
surrounding padding and often a border; there's no transparency of the
background, both the foreground and background are used with specific plain
colors, also in such usage the logo is almost always much larger than any
text around).

However the Red Cross usage still demonstrates that the symbol is widely
understood as as symbol of peace and respect, it would not have been chosen
if this meaning was not locally well understood. This local meaning is a
sign that it is used without saying more in other contexts can can replace
text.

It is certainly even better than many emojis or dingbats (like the skull
and bones) or the mysterious symbols of the Phaistos Disk.

----

Anyway I'm still looking in Unicode for the symbol of the peacock ("paon"
in French), i.e. the male bird exhibiting its large wheel of plums.

Also this Faravahar Symbol, used by Zoroastrians throughout Middle-East up
to India since several milleniums:

http://op-ed.the-environmentalist.org/2007/04/zoroastrianisms-influence-on-judaism.html



2014-07-02 9:48 GMT+02:00 James Clark <jjc at jclark.com>:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there evidence of its use in text? This should be an essential
>> question when discussing whether it should be defined as a Unicode
>> character. Use as “logo” or, rather, as a standalone graphic symbol does
>> not really mean it is used as a character.
>
>
> It is a standalone graphic symbol with a religious and astrological
> significance.  There are a number such symbols in Unicode, for example:
> U+2626-U+262A, and U+1F540-U+1F54A.  My understanding is that such symbols
> are eligible to be encoded in Unicode, though there are many factors to
> considered:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html
>
> James
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20140702/4ac139cf/attachment.html>