Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Wed May 20 20:14:57 CDT 2015
I've always been a bit partial to them and found it odd that they are intentionally not included in Unicode. Especially the novel concepts like the repeats.
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 6:08 PM
To: unicode at unicode.org
Subject: Re: Tag characters
On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:15:28 -0700
"Asmus Freytag (t)" <asmus-inc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Have there been any discussions of the flag alphabet? (Signal flags).
> It seems to me that when schemes for representing sets of flags are
> discussed, it would be useful to keep open the ability to use the same
> scheme for signal flags -- perhaps with a different base character to
> avoid collisions in the letter codes.
If these are worthy of coding, I think the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics would be a better model - encode the form, not the semantic.
Braille is another precedent.
More information about the Unicode