Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!
Philippe Verdy via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Mar 7 16:04:21 CST 2018
I'm just speaking about the many yearly inventions of sinograms for
personal/proper names, not about the ues of traditional characters for
People just start by assembling components with common rules. Then they
enhance the produced character just like we personalize signatures. But for
me, all these look like personal signatures and are not neede for formal
encoding and even these persons will accept alternate presentations if it's
just to cite them (and would not like much that you imitate their personal
signature by standardizing it in a worldwide standard: I think many of
these encodings have severe privacy issues, possibly as well copyright
2018-03-07 22:35 GMT+01:00 Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at att.net>:
> On 3/7/2018 1:12 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
>> Shouldn't we create a variant of IDS, using combining joiners between Han
>> base glyphs (then possibly augmented by variant selectors if there are
>> significant differences on the simplification of rendered strokes for each
>> component) ? What is really limiting us to do that ?
> Ummm.... ambiguity, lack of precision, complexity of model, pushback by
> stakeholders, likely failure of uptake by most implementers, duplication of
> representation, ...
> Do you think combining models of Han weren't already thought of years ago?
> They predated the original encoding of unified CJK in Unicode in 1992. They
> weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now, either, after 26 years of
> Unicode implementation of unified CJK as atomic ideographs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode