From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 15 19:26:49 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:26:49 -0400
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
Message-ID: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190415/ea1ef5f9/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 15 20:58:31 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Tex via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:58:31 -0700
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
Message-ID: <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>

Oy veh!

 

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM
To: unicode at unicode.org
Subject: Emoji Haggadah

 

The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji Haggadah (https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/) is the fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it...

 

~mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190415/e8ba04be/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 15 21:56:43 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Beth Myre via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:56:43 -0400
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
Message-ID: <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>

This is amazing.

It's also really interesting that he decided to make the sentences read
left-to-right.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:05 PM Tex via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
wrote:

> Oy veh!
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> E. Shoulson via Unicode
> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM
> *To:* unicode at unicode.org
> *Subject:* Emoji Haggadah
>
>
>
> The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji Haggadah (
> https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/) is the
> fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it...
>
>
>
> ~mark
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190415/142e3e13/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 15 22:18:34 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 23:18:34 -0400
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>

Yes.? But the sentences aren't just symbolic representations of the 
concepts or something.? They are frequently direct 
transcriptions?usually by puns?for *English* sentences, so left-to-right 
makes sense.? So for example, the phrase "????????" translates "The LORD 
our God".? For whatever reason, the author decided to go with ??? for 
"God" and such, and the hourglass in the middle is for "our", which 
sounds like "hour".? See?? Ugh.? I think he uses ???? for "us" (U.S. = 
us). In the story of the five Rabbis discussing the laws in Bnei Brak, 
for one thing the word "Rabbi" is transcribed ?? ("rabbit" instead of 
"rabbi"), and it says they were in "??????" (boy - boy - 
cloud-with-lightning).? The two boys for "sons" (which translates the 
word "Bnei" in the name of the city), and the lightning, "barak" in 
Hebrew, is for "brak", the second part of the name. The front cover, 
which you can see on the amazon page... That ?? (shell) in the title?? 
Because it's saying "Haggadah shel Pesach", the Hebrew word "shel" 
meaning "of."? The author's name?? ???????? (or whatever the exact 
ordering is): "Martin Bodek", that is martini-glass, bow, and the four 
suits of a DECK of cards.? Sorry; see what I mean about getting carried 
away by being able to read the silly thing?? Anyway.? The sentences are 
definitely ENGLISH sentences, not Hebrew or any sort of language-neutral 
semasiography or whatever, so LTR ordering makes sense (to the extent 
any of this makes sense.)

~mark

On 4/15/19 10:56 PM, Beth Myre via Unicode wrote:
> This is amazing.
>
> It's also really interesting that he decided to make the sentences 
> read left-to-right.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:05 PM Tex via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org 
> <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>> wrote:
>
>     Oy veh!
>
>     *From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org
>     <mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark E.
>     Shoulson via Unicode
>     *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM
>     *To:* unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>
>     *Subject:* Emoji Haggadah
>
>     The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji
>     Haggadah
>     (https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/)
>     is the fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it...
>
>     ~mark
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190415/4cac3ffc/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 00:12:51 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 05:12:51 +0000
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
Message-ID: <b7af5636-105d-fec9-9287-7db16c1e6604@gmail.com>


On 2019-04-16 3:18 AM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:

 > For whatever reason, the author decided to go with ??? for "God" and 
such, ...

"OM"igod.

Just a thought.

If the emoji OM SYMBOL is to be used for "god", shouldn't it be casing 
to enable distinction between the common noun and the deity?

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 02:09:06 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEouIETDvHJzdA==?= via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 07:09:06 +0000
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
Message-ID: <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

Hello Mark, others,

On 2019/04/16 12:18, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Yes.? But the sentences aren't just symbolic representations of the 
> concepts or something.? They are frequently direct 
> transcriptions?usually by puns?for *English* sentences, so left-to-right 
> makes sense.? So for example, the phrase "????????" translates "The LORD 
> our God".? For whatever reason, the author decided to go with ??? for 
> "God" and such, and the hourglass in the middle is for "our", which 
> sounds like "hour".? See?? Ugh.? I think he uses ???? for "us" (U.S. = 
> us). In the story of the five Rabbis discussing the laws in Bnei Brak, 
> for one thing the word "Rabbi" is transcribed ?? ("rabbit" instead of 
> "rabbi"), and it says they were in "??????" (boy - boy - 
> cloud-with-lightning).? The two boys for "sons" (which translates the 
> word "Bnei" in the name of the city), and the lightning, "barak" in 
> Hebrew, is for "brak", the second part of the name. The front cover, 
> which you can see on the amazon page... That ?? (shell) in the title? 
> Because it's saying "Haggadah shel Pesach", the Hebrew word "shel" 
> meaning "of."? The author's name?? ???????? (or whatever the exact 
> ordering is): "Martin Bodek", that is martini-glass, bow, and the four 
> suits of a DECK of cards.? Sorry; see what I mean about getting carried 
> away by being able to read the silly thing?? Anyway.? The sentences are 
> definitely ENGLISH sentences, not Hebrew or any sort of language-neutral 
> semasiography or whatever, so LTR ordering makes sense (to the extent 
> any of this makes sense.)

All the examples you cite, where images stand for sounds, are typically 
used in some of the oldest "ideographic" scripts. Egyptian definitely 
has such concepts, and Han (CJK) does so, too, with most ideographs 
consisting of a semantic and a phonetic component.

There is a well-known thesis in linguistics that every script has to be 
at least in part phonetic, and the above are examples that add support 
to this. For deeper explanations (unfortunately not yet including 
emoji), see e.g. "Visible Speech - The Diverse Oneness of Writing 
Systems", by John DeFrancis, University of Hawaii Press, 1989.

Regards,   Martin.


> ~mark
> 
> On 4/15/19 10:56 PM, Beth Myre via Unicode wrote:
>> This is amazing.
>>
>> It's also really interesting that he decided to make the sentences 
>> read left-to-right.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:05 PM Tex via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org 
>> <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>> wrote:
>>
>> ??? Oy veh!
>>
>> ??? *From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org
>> ??? <mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark E.
>> ??? Shoulson via Unicode
>> ??? *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM
>> ??? *To:* unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>
>> ??? *Subject:* Emoji Haggadah
>>
>> ??? The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji
>> ??? Haggadah
>> ??? (https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/)
>> ??? is the fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it...
>>
>> ??? ~mark



From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 03:00:23 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:00:23 +0000
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>


On 2019-04-16 7:09 AM, Martin J. D?rst via Unicode wrote:
> All the examples you cite, where images stand for sounds, are typically
> used in some of the oldest "ideographic" scripts. Egyptian definitely
> has such concepts, and Han (CJK) does so, too, with most ideographs
> consisting of a semantic and a phonetic component.

Using emoji as rebus puzzles seems harmless enough but it defeats the 
goals of those emoji proponents who want to see emoji evolve into a 
universal form of communication because phonetic recognition of symbols 
would be language specific.? Users of ancient ideographic systems 
typically shared a common language where rebus or phonetic usage made 
sense to the users.? (Of course, diverse CJK user communities were able 
to adapt over time.)

All of the reviews of this publication on the page originally linked 
seemed positive, so it appears that people are having fun with emoji.? 
But I suspect that this work would be jibber-jabber to any non-English 
speaker unfamiliar with the original Haggadah.? No matter how otherwise 
fluent they might be in emoji communication.


From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 13:20:40 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Asmus Freytag via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:20:40 -0700
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1f53e75f-c832-7f74-879d-f28510aae36f@ix.netcom.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190416/66e96120/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 17:26:38 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:26:38 -0400
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c288bea9-ccd0-ecfb-7e71-b72907345d58@kli.org>

On 4/16/19 4:00 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 2019-04-16 7:09 AM, Martin J. D?rst via Unicode wrote:
>> All the examples you cite, where images stand for sounds, are typically
>> used in some of the oldest "ideographic" scripts. Egyptian definitely
>> has such concepts, and Han (CJK) does so, too, with most ideographs
>> consisting of a semantic and a phonetic component.
>
> Using emoji as rebus puzzles seems harmless enough but it defeats the 
> goals of those emoji proponents who want to see emoji evolve into a 
> universal form of communication because phonetic recognition of 
> symbols would be language specific.? Users of ancient ideographic 
> systems typically shared a common language where rebus or phonetic 
> usage made sense to the users.? (Of course, diverse CJK user 
> communities were able to adapt over time.)
>
> All of the reviews of this publication on the page originally linked 
> seemed positive, so it appears that people are having fun with emoji.? 
> But I suspect that this work would be jibber-jabber to any non-English 
> speaker unfamiliar with the original Haggadah. No matter how otherwise 
> fluent they might be in emoji communication.

You are certainly correct that you need to be an English-speaker to read 
it.? Knowing the original (and Hebrew) helps, and maybe sometimes is 
necessary too (How can Rabbi Akiva be translated as ??????? Well, 
"rabbit" for "Rabbi" [English-speaking knowledge], and "Akiva" comes 
from the root AYIN-QOF-BET, meaning "heel" [Hebrew knowledge]).? There 
is a section in the back that purports to explain the workings of some 
of this, but I actually haven't read it, and have been avoiding it.? 
Just working it out on my own.? The back of the book also has the actual 
text in both Hebrew and English, and sometimes I'll look there to see 
what the English was that they were translating to get whatever it was 
they got to.

I think the notion that emoji could evolve into a "universal form of 
communication" is unrealistic.? Emoji are in many ways *definitionally* 
culture-specific, far from culturally neutral (at best they can try to 
be kinda inclusive, but that only goes so far.)? Crafting specific 
sentences to meet the demands of a language-speaking population needs 
more than the cute-looking symbols.? It also needs boring ones to 
express their relationships, or at least some cool way to join them 
together (see the famous "Yukaghir Love Letter"; one description here: 
historyview.blogspot.com/2011/10/yukaghir-girl-writes-love-letter.html) 
At any rate, emoji are not designed or selected with completeness for 
communication in mind.? For them to fill that role, there would have to 
be some work done on figuring out what's missing, etc.? (see also a 
whole slew of conlang projects from the zany to the scholarly (but 
mostly zany) attempting to distill all meaning down to a ridiculously 
small set of symbols for expressing anything.? What's coming to mind to 
me right now is aUI, which if I recall correctly had all of 
communication boiled down to 36 symbols?of which 10 were numerals).

It's still kinda fun to work out what the book is trying to say, though...


~mark


From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 16 22:52:15 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 03:52:15 +0000
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <c288bea9-ccd0-ecfb-7e71-b72907345d58@kli.org>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
 <c288bea9-ccd0-ecfb-7e71-b72907345d58@kli.org>
Message-ID: <590f864f-6d0f-af51-fba6-28ea8eedcd3b@gmail.com>


 > 
http://historyview.blogspot.com/2011/10/yukaghir-girl-writes-love-letter.html

According to a comment, the Yukaghir love letter as semasiographic 
communication was debunked by John DeFrancis in 1989 who asserted that 
it was merely a prop in a Yukaghir parlor game.? Perhaps that debunking 
was in the very book cited by Martin J. D?rst earlier in this thread.

Martin J. D?rst via Unicode wrote,
 >> There is a well-known thesis in linguistics that every script has to be
 >> at least in part phonetic, and the above are examples that add support
 >> to this. For deeper explanations (unfortunately not yet including
 >> emoji), see e.g. "Visible Speech - The Diverse Oneness of Writing
 >> Systems", by John DeFrancis, University of Hawaii Press, 1989.

The blog page comment went on to say that Geoffrey Sampson, who wrote 
the book from which the blogger learned of the Yukaghir love letter, 
published a retraction in 1994.


From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 00:06:46 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:06:46 +0000
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <590f864f-6d0f-af51-fba6-28ea8eedcd3b@gmail.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
 <c288bea9-ccd0-ecfb-7e71-b72907345d58@kli.org>
 <590f864f-6d0f-af51-fba6-28ea8eedcd3b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef1e5340-d898-3b70-f14f-f320f6a42e17@gmail.com>

 > Perhaps that debunking was in the very book
 > cited by Martin J. D?rst earlier in this thread.

Yes, starting on page 24.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hypplIDMd0IC&pg=PA24&dq=isbn:0824812077+Yukaghir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1n4r719zgAhWJn4MKHcdyCHIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=isbn%3A0824812077%20Yukaghir&f=false

From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 06:12:07 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:12:07 -0400
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <590f864f-6d0f-af51-fba6-28ea8eedcd3b@gmail.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
 <CAJxzDhsxXLTUYVPBKaSHymKQhK_J=CoUyGxKXpGroj3pAnFfWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcbf64eb-cb13-239d-57e6-f06c1761636d@kli.org>
 <7c4d1aab-42cb-a825-e2a1-37b9516a9368@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <dde883c4-7b2e-e606-004b-cfae630c93f0@gmail.com>
 <c288bea9-ccd0-ecfb-7e71-b72907345d58@kli.org>
 <590f864f-6d0f-af51-fba6-28ea8eedcd3b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <841e5ded-4f04-8e6d-01e1-4cc15fba7b2e@kli.org>

On 4/16/19 11:52 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> > 
> http://historyview.blogspot.com/2011/10/yukaghir-girl-writes-love-letter.html
>
> According to a comment, the Yukaghir love letter as semasiographic 
> communication was debunked by John DeFrancis in 1989 who asserted that 
> it was merely a prop in a Yukaghir parlor game.? Perhaps that 
> debunking was in the very book cited by Martin J. D?rst earlier in 
> this thread.
>
> The blog page comment went on to say that Geoffrey Sampson, who wrote 
> the book from which the blogger learned of the Yukaghir love letter, 
> published a retraction in 1994.

Thank you.? I read about it in Sampson's book, but had not heard about 
the debunking or the retraction.

Almost too bad; it seems to work so well.? The closest thing I know to 
something like that, expressing ideas but not language-dependent, would 
be mathematical notation.

~mark


From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 16:04:30 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Oren Watson via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:04:30 -0400
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
Message-ID: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>

Would anyone know where to report this?
In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph
shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter
psi, not a phi.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190417/964e2870/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 16:23:13 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Tauber via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:23:13 -0400
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>

It looks correct in Google Docs so it appears to have been fixed in
whatever version of the font is used there.

James

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
wrote:

> Would anyone know where to report this?
> In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph
> shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter
> psi, not a phi.
>
>

-- 
*James Tauber*
Eldarion <https://eldarion.com/> | Scaife Viewer
<https://scaife-viewer.org/> | jktauber.com (Greek Linguistics)
<https://jktauber.com/> | Modelling Music
<https://modelling-music.com/> | Digital
Tolkien <https://digitaltolkien.com/>
Subscribe to my email newsletter <https://buttondown.email/jtauber>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190417/ca1e76a7/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 16:53:35 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Oren Watson via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:53:35 -0400
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKs2F=rhCcTjfY9v7i=BQbFsrHMQ-jNPxdBLfdxESWOxeaxCsQ@mail.gmail.com>

You can easily reporduce this by going here:
https://www.fonts.com/font/microsoft-corporation/calibri/regular
and putting in the following string: ????

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM James Tauber <jtauber at jtauber.com> wrote:

> It looks correct in Google Docs so it appears to have been fixed in
> whatever version of the font is used there.
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM Oren Watson via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> Would anyone know where to report this?
>> In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph
>> shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter
>> psi, not a phi.
>>
>>
>
> --
> *James Tauber*
> Eldarion <https://eldarion.com/> | Scaife Viewer
> <https://scaife-viewer.org/> | jktauber.com (Greek Linguistics)
> <https://jktauber.com/> | Modelling Music <https://modelling-music.com/> |
> Digital Tolkien <https://digitaltolkien.com/>
> Subscribe to my email newsletter <https://buttondown.email/jtauber>!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190417/ecbcfd3b/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 17:06:30 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?= via Unicode)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:06:30 +0200
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <CAKs2F=rhCcTjfY9v7i=BQbFsrHMQ-jNPxdBLfdxESWOxeaxCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKs2F=rhCcTjfY9v7i=BQbFsrHMQ-jNPxdBLfdxESWOxeaxCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <819FC73B-ECB2-44A9-80B2-538523DFDD9B@telia.com>

You are possibly both right, because it is OK in the web font but wrong in the desktop font.


> On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:53, Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> You can easily reproduce this by going here: 
> https://www.fonts.com/font/microsoft-corporation/calibri/regular
> and putting in the following string: ????
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM James Tauber <jtauber at jtauber.com> wrote:
> It looks correct in Google Docs so it appears to have been fixed in whatever version of the font is used there.
> 
> James
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> Would anyone know where to report this?
> In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter psi, not a phi.



From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 17:40:58 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:40:58 +0000
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <819FC73B-ECB2-44A9-80B2-538523DFDD9B@telia.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKs2F=rhCcTjfY9v7i=BQbFsrHMQ-jNPxdBLfdxESWOxeaxCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <819FC73B-ECB2-44A9-80B2-538523DFDD9B@telia.com>
Message-ID: <b211db00-140a-e82d-b24b-d4ae18b5149f@gmail.com>


Confirming that the installed version here shows psi.? (Version 5.74)

Luc(as) de Groot is the type designer, I've copied him on this message.


On 2019-04-17 10:06 PM, Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote:
> You are possibly both right, because it is OK in the web font but wrong in the desktop font.
>
>
>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:53, Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>
>> You can easily reproduce this by going here:
>> https://www.fonts.com/font/microsoft-corporation/calibri/regular
>> and putting in the following string: ????
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM James Tauber <jtauber at jtauber.com> wrote:
>> It looks correct in Google Docs so it appears to have been fixed in whatever version of the font is used there.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>> Would anyone know where to report this?
>> In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter psi, not a phi.
>


From unicode at unicode.org  Wed Apr 17 18:13:16 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Tauber via Unicode)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 19:13:16 -0400
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <819FC73B-ECB2-44A9-80B2-538523DFDD9B@telia.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdVgGJDiV8fnUccqmmzpgvFkFJuy0t-P8CozYATfDTKu_ae_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKs2F=rhCcTjfY9v7i=BQbFsrHMQ-jNPxdBLfdxESWOxeaxCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <819FC73B-ECB2-44A9-80B2-538523DFDD9B@telia.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdVgG+aJmrzGdsdrc8HC=2pTAk2T8JLx0veFHHVVMs4T=3Y9A@mail.gmail.com>

Wasn't meaning to imply Oren was wrong, just that there are multiple
versions floating around with a different glyph at the U+1D60 code point.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Hans ?berg <haberg-1 at telia.com> wrote:

> You are possibly both right, because it is OK in the web font but wrong in
> the desktop font.
>
>
> > On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:53, Oren Watson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > You can easily reproduce this by going here:
> > https://www.fonts.com/font/microsoft-corporation/calibri/regular
> > and putting in the following string: ????
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM James Tauber <jtauber at jtauber.com>
> wrote:
> > It looks correct in Google Docs so it appears to have been fixed in
> whatever version of the font is used there.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM Oren Watson via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> > Would anyone know where to report this?
> > In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph
> shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter
> psi, not a phi.
>
>

-- 
*James Tauber*
Eldarion <https://eldarion.com/> | Scaife Viewer
<https://scaife-viewer.org/> | jktauber.com (Greek Linguistics)
<https://jktauber.com/> | Modelling Music
<https://modelling-music.com/> | Digital
Tolkien <https://digitaltolkien.com/>
Subscribe to my email newsletter <https://buttondown.email/jtauber>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190417/5accbdbf/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 00:50:45 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Peter Constable via Unicode)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:50:45 +0000
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.
In-Reply-To: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKs2F=pjbN_Z6gTDESh+qZ0++yRZumVZ1byKx2t2euk-iLLSYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MW2PR2101MB1065E78679BFD9A44F2DF983D5260@MW2PR2101MB1065.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks for reporting. The team responsible for the font has recorded a bug entry for this issue and will be working on a fix.

From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at unicode.org> On Behalf Of Oren Watson via Unicode
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:05 PM
To: unicode Unicode Discussion <unicode at unicode.org>
Subject: MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI in Calibri is wrong.

Would anyone know where to report this?
In the widely used Calibri typeface included with MS Office, the glyph shown for U+1D60 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL GREEK PHI, actually depicts a letter psi, not a phi.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190418/24425c33/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 14:59:53 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:59:53 +0100
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
Message-ID: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2>

Is there any reason why U+0310 COMBINING CANDRABINDU has scx=Inherited
rather than scx=Latn?  The only language I've seen the character used
in is Sanskrit, and the only script I've seen it in is the Latin
script.

Richard. 

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 15:36:46 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:36:46 +0000
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <519fbd2a-c853-307c-4503-0d3407099099@gmail.com>


The Guara Times font maps Cyrillic letters (?,?,?,?) with chandrabindus 
in the P.U.A. of the font.? This can be done without the P.U.A. using 
U+0310:? ??,??,??,??

http://www.chakra.lv/blog/2016/10/19/transliterating-sanskrit-into-russian/

On 2019-04-18 7:59 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> Is there any reason why U+0310 COMBINING CANDRABINDU has scx=Inherited
> rather than scx=Latn?  The only language I've seen the character used
> in is Sanskrit, and the only script I've seen it in is the Latin
> script.
>
> Richard.


From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 18:52:15 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Marius Spix via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:52:15 +0200
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>

The Wikipedia page states, U+0310 is a general-purpose combining
diacritical mark. I would treat it similar like U+0308 (COMBINING
DIAERESIS) or U+030C (COMBINING CARON), which are both characters with
multiple names and different meanings depending on the script and the
language. The main benefit of these general-purpose combining
diacritical marks is, that they can be applied to many characters if
needed. I don?t think, it is a good idea to remove this versatility. At
least one example exists, where someone used the combining candrabindu
for a constructed language as the upside-down counterpart to the
combining fermata. http://randomguy32.de/conlang/000/writing/

Best regards,

Marius


Am Do., 18 Apr 2019 20:59:53 +0100
schrieb Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:

> Is there any reason why U+0310 COMBINING CANDRABINDU has scx=Inherited
> rather than scx=Latn?  The only language I've seen the character used
> in is Sanskrit, and the only script I've seen it in is the Latin
> script.
> 
> Richard. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190419/7e278468/attachment.pgp>

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 21:50:42 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:50:42 +0100
Subject: Latin Script Danda
Message-ID: <20190419035042.13654e44@JRWUBU2>

Which character should one use for a danda in the Latin script?  I
believed normal usage is to use U+0964 DEVANAGARI DANDA, but for some
reason its script extension property does not include the Latin script.

Richard.

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 18 22:02:51 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 04:02:51 +0100
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2> <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
Message-ID: <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:52:15 +0200
Marius Spix via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> The Wikipedia page states, U+0310 is a general-purpose combining
> diacritical mark. I would treat it similar like U+0308 (COMBINING
> DIAERESIS) or U+030C (COMBINING CARON), which are both characters with
> multiple names and different meanings depending on the script and the
> language. The main benefit of these general-purpose combining
> diacritical marks is, that they can be applied to many characters if
> needed. I don?t think, it is a good idea to remove this versatility.

That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
saying it is to be used with Devanagari".

However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.

Richard.


From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 01:03:35 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Shriramana Sharma via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:33:35 +0530
Subject: Latin Script Danda
In-Reply-To: <20190419035042.13654e44@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190419035042.13654e44@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <CAH-HCWX6Lk6DC80WagdumAfCf-k1FDNibHSVTHAN0TVKVcXbag@mail.gmail.com>

We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in our
favourite Latin script fonts. See for example:
https://twitter.com/ShriramanaS/status/793480884116529152

It would be ideal for Sanskrit/Indic text in IAST/ISO to be
displayable/printable using any common Latin font which is found
typographically pleasant. For instance the font I have used in that
Twitter post is Gentium Basic. I use this font for most of my Latin
script publication purposes (including Unicode documents) and it
contains the pipe character but it does not contain Devanagari
characters.

It would be difficult to canvas Latin font vendors to include the
Devanagari characters 0964/0965 on a small technicality of character
property.

Is there a particular reason it's *really* necessary to include Latn
in the script extension property of 0964/0965?


-- 
Shriramana Sharma ???????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????


From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 01:06:16 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Shriramana Sharma via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:36:16 +0530
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2> <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
 <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <CAH-HCWXqEMwOwYechKLjBzYybmm33FR8kSkuXjXvfgzA_sb0QQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
> U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
> saying it is to be used with Devanagari".

Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already
has a candrabindu?

> However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
> general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.

Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining
Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that
separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text
shaping engines or such.

-- 
Shriramana Sharma ???????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????


From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 04:42:24 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:42:24 +0100
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <CAH-HCWXqEMwOwYechKLjBzYybmm33FR8kSkuXjXvfgzA_sb0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2> <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
 <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>
 <CAH-HCWXqEMwOwYechKLjBzYybmm33FR8kSkuXjXvfgzA_sb0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190419104224.6e4f663b@JRWUBU2>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:36:16 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> wrote:
> > That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
> > U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
> > saying it is to be used with Devanagari".  
> 
> Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already
> has a candrabindu?

I know any such footnote would be wrong.  Disproving it ever existed is
trickier.  I can imagine a statement that it "represents the Devanagari
candrabindu", which could after the passage of years change into the
claim in someone's human memory.

> > However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
> > general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.  

> Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining
> Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that
> separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text
> shaping engines or such.

That reminds me - what if anything is happening about Tamil script
candrabindu? You reported that U+0310 was being used in that r?le.

Richard.


From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 09:24:47 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Shriramana Sharma via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:54:47 +0530
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <20190419104224.6e4f663b@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2> <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
 <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>
 <CAH-HCWXqEMwOwYechKLjBzYybmm33FR8kSkuXjXvfgzA_sb0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190419104224.6e4f663b@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <CAH-HCWUEUSNMDLTaVwPOiTeEXC_pQmWwNFX+p+g-c9uZXPVp5w@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> That reminds me - what if anything is happening about Tamil script
> candrabindu? You reported that U+0310 was being used in that r?le.

I think that there was an idea to add Taml to U+0310's script extensions.

Or maybe the Grantha candrabindu can be used, since there is already
evidence for mixed usage of the scripts and nukta characters have been
encoded for Tamil usage in the Grantha block for this same reason
despite Grantha users objecting to it as unattested! ??

-- 
Shriramana Sharma ???????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????


From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 10:09:15 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:09:15 +0100
Subject: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
In-Reply-To: <CAH-HCWUEUSNMDLTaVwPOiTeEXC_pQmWwNFX+p+g-c9uZXPVp5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190418205953.37f8bfbc@JRWUBU2> <20190419015215.24f75b21@spixxi>
 <20190419040251.2c091354@JRWUBU2>
 <CAH-HCWXqEMwOwYechKLjBzYybmm33FR8kSkuXjXvfgzA_sb0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190419104224.6e4f663b@JRWUBU2>
 <CAH-HCWUEUSNMDLTaVwPOiTeEXC_pQmWwNFX+p+g-c9uZXPVp5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190419160915.772a6ff3@JRWUBU2>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:54:47 +0530
Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Or maybe the Grantha candrabindu can be used, since there is already
> evidence for mixed usage of the scripts and nukta characters have been
> encoded for Tamil usage in the Grantha block for this same reason
> despite Grantha users objecting to it as unattested!

That seems to be the approved solution - the script_extension property
of U+11301 GRANTHA SIGN CANDRABINDU is {Gran, Taml}.

Richard.

From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 12:11:19 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Philippe Verdy via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:11:19 +0200
Subject: Emoji Haggadah
In-Reply-To: <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
References: <1c3bbd76-a908-e1b3-c79b-b7b48c28b64f@kli.org>
 <000c01d4f3f7$e4e6ce30$aeb46a90$@xencraft.com>
Message-ID: <CAGa7JC2N-dqkZ3ad_DT-R4+qkfhSGv5FEtwyV25We3BL2TsxkA@mail.gmail.com>

I cannot; definitely it requires first good knowldge of English (to find
possible synonyms, plus phonetic approximations, including using
abbreviatable words), and Hebrew culture (to guess names and the context).
All this text looks completely random and makes no sense otherwise.

Le mar. 16 avr. 2019 ? 04:22, Tex via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> a
?crit :

> Oy veh!
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> E. Shoulson via Unicode
> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM
> *To:* unicode at unicode.org
> *Subject:* Emoji Haggadah
>
>
>
> The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji Haggadah (
> https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/) is the
> fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it...
>
>
>
> ~mark
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190419/a93fa61c/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 20:38:44 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:38:44 +0100
Subject: Fw: Latin Script Danda
Message-ID: <20190420023844.03889e74@JRWUBU2>



Begin forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:30:32 +0100
From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com>
To: Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Latin Script Danda


On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:33:35 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in our
> favourite Latin script fonts. See for example:
> https://twitter.com/ShriramanaS/status/793480884116529152  

The broken bar glyph of the pipe character does not feel appropriate.  

> It would be ideal for Sanskrit/Indic text in IAST/ISO to be
> displayable/printable using any common Latin font which is found
> typographically pleasant. For instance the font I have used in that
> Twitter post is Gentium Basic. I use this font for most of my Latin
> script publication purposes (including Unicode documents) and it
> contains the pipe character but it does not contain Devanagari
> characters.  

> It would be difficult to canvas Latin font vendors to include the
> Devanagari characters 0964/0965 on a small technicality of character
> property.  

Font designers for many Indic scripts have had to learn that
U+0964 and U+0965 have the script property of 'Common', not
Devanagari.  I don't trust automated font pickers in that respect,
though.

> Is there a particular reason it's *really* necessary to include Latn
> in the script extension property of 0964/0965?  

No more so than including Indian scripts in the list.  There has been a
threat to use the script extension property in breaking text into
script runs, and U+0964 and U+0965 are often better with
script-sensitive forms.

Richard.

From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 20:57:50 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Shriramana Sharma via Unicode)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 07:27:50 +0530
Subject: Fw: Latin Script Danda
In-Reply-To: <20190420023844.03889e74@JRWUBU2>
References: <20190420023844.03889e74@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <CAH-HCWVVG8TY125EGKKc8kywyKUy+OtOqe_DY9TCN5177M9H6Q@mail.gmail.com>

I don't know many modern fonts that display 007C as a broken glyph. In fact
I haven't seen a broken line pipe glyph since the MS-DOS days. Nowadays we
have 00A6 for that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190420/42625a05/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 19 21:21:56 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Asmus Freytag via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:21:56 -0700
Subject: Fw: Latin Script Danda
In-Reply-To: <CAH-HCWVVG8TY125EGKKc8kywyKUy+OtOqe_DY9TCN5177M9H6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190420023844.03889e74@JRWUBU2>
 <CAH-HCWVVG8TY125EGKKc8kywyKUy+OtOqe_DY9TCN5177M9H6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51d587c9-ea5e-1945-7c16-0bd96124b452@ix.netcom.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190419/c153169f/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Thu Apr 25 09:09:20 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Fredrick Brennan via Unicode)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:09:20 +0800
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Is_ARMENIAN_ABBREVIATION_MARK_(=D5=9F,
 _U+055F)_misclassified=3F?=
Message-ID: <16a54d44d64.b9b025b335584.1329791971986503867@kittens.ph>

Although my research on this has by no means been exhaustive, it seems at a cursory glance that the ?pativ?, the Armenian abbreviation mark, is misclassified; it seems it should either be itself a combining mark or have a combining mark version.

I have not been able to find a single Unicode font which treats it as such, however.

Is Wikipedia, then, correct to say ?The pativ was used as an Armenian abbreviation mark, and was placed on top of an abbreviated word to indicate that it was abbreviated.?? The image included was built with a LaTeX hack according to its description to get it to build "properly".

How should fonts treat this? Should I file a bug in Noto Sans Armenian, and other open source fonts which include U+055F? Or is Unicode right, and Wikipedia wrong? (If so, someone should fix that.)



From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 26 18:08:08 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Doug Ewell via Unicode)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:08:08 -0600
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Is_ARMENIAN_ABBREVIATION_MAR?=
 =?utf-8?Q?K_=28=D5=9F=2C_U+055F=29_misclassified=3F?=
Message-ID: <002c01d4fc84$e9f3d220$bddb7660$@ewellic.org>

Fredrick Brennan wrote:

> Although my research on this has by no means been exhaustive, it
> seems at a cursory glance that the ?pativ?, the Armenian abbreviation
> mark, is misclassified; it seems it should either be itself a
> combining mark or have a combining mark version.
>
> I have not been able to find a single Unicode font which treats it as
> such, however.

Using BabelPad on Windows 10, with the sequence <0531, 0532, 0533, 055F> (ayb, ben, gim, abbreviation mark), the following fonts show the abbreviation mark correctly over the gim:

Calibri
Cambria
Cambria Math
Nishiki-teki
Trebuchet MS

All of these except Nishiki-teki are standard Windows fonts.

This is a small percentage of the number of fonts that have all four of these Armenian glyphs, but show the abbreviation mark as a spacing glyph. It looks like Unicode is right, Wikipedia is right, and the fonts are wrong.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org




From unicode at unicode.org  Fri Apr 26 19:08:52 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Kass via Unicode)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 00:08:52 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Is_ARMENIAN_ABBREVIATION_MARK_=28=d5=9f=2c_U+055F?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=29_misclassified=3f?=
In-Reply-To: <002c01d4fc84$e9f3d220$bddb7660$@ewellic.org>
References: <002c01d4fc84$e9f3d220$bddb7660$@ewellic.org>
Message-ID: <247ed607-58c7-0b4d-2834-f85650179ac9@gmail.com>


On 2019-04-26 11:08 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> This is a small percentage of the number of fonts that have all four of these Armenian glyphs, but show the abbreviation mark as a spacing glyph. It looks like Unicode is right, Wikipedia is right, and the fonts are wrong.
If the Wikipedia page(s) are correct, then Unicode isn't.? Unicode 
charts don't show the glyph on the dotted circle and the canonical 
combining class is shown as "spacing".? The fact that Doug Ewell found 
some installed fonts displaying the character as a combining mark 
suggests that the Wikipedia pages are correct.? This character is listed 
as being unused in modern Armenian, but you'd think that it would have 
been exposed before now since the charcter has been in Unicode since 
version 1.0.

From unicode at unicode.org  Sat Apr 27 03:38:54 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Richard Wordingham via Unicode)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 09:38:54 +0100
Subject: Is ARMENIAN ABBREVIATION MARK =?UTF-8?B?KNWfLA==?= U+055F)
 misclassified?
In-Reply-To: <247ed607-58c7-0b4d-2834-f85650179ac9@gmail.com>
References: <002c01d4fc84$e9f3d220$bddb7660$@ewellic.org>
 <247ed607-58c7-0b4d-2834-f85650179ac9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190427093854.7670feb5@JRWUBU2>

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 00:08:52 +0000
James Kass via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> On 2019-04-26 11:08 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> > This is a small percentage of the number of fonts that have all
> > four of these Armenian glyphs, but show the abbreviation mark as a
> > spacing glyph. It looks like Unicode is right, Wikipedia is right,
> > and the fonts are wrong.  
> If the Wikipedia page(s) are correct, then Unicode isn't.? Unicode 
> charts don't show the glyph on the dotted circle and the canonical 
> combining class is shown as "spacing".? The fact that Doug Ewell
> found some installed fonts displaying the character as a combining
> mark suggests that the Wikipedia pages are correct.? This character
> is listed as being unused in modern Armenian, but you'd think that it
> would have been exposed before now since the charcter has been in
> Unicode since version 1.0.

Well, ccc=0 is entirely permissible for non-spacing marks, though I find
it an invitation to misspell words.

I think the most important admissible issue is one of word boundaries.
U+055F has line_break=alphabetic, but word_break=other.  The latter
doesn't seem very friendly towards spell checkers, but perhaps there is
a good reason for it.  Word_break=other is not compatible with being a
non-spacing mark.

Another important, but probably inadmissible, issue is that of the
effect on editing. Life is easier if one can easily change the character
preceding the abbreviation sign; this would often be difficult if the
abbreviation sign were a combining mark.

What advantages would accrue from changing U+055F from Po to Mn?

Richard.


From unicode at unicode.org  Sat Apr 27 10:32:31 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Philippe Verdy via Unicode)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 17:32:31 +0200
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
Message-ID: <CAGa7JC0iNyZ8iaoh7xwmD6XpH_fyPNQ=i3ehRmnBvXarLBt1dQ@mail.gmail.com>

A very useful think to add to Unicode (for colorblind people) !

http://bestinportugal.com/color-add-project-brings-color-identification-to-the-color-blind


Is it proposed to add as new symbols ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190427/3db7e303/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 13:02:44 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Doug Ewell via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:02:44 -0700
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
Message-ID: <20190429110244.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.acca7f4840.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>

Philippe Verdy wrote:
 
> A very useful think to add to Unicode (for colorblind people) !
>
> http://bestinportugal.com/color-add-project-brings-color-identification-to-the-color-blind
>
> Is it proposed to add as new symbols ?
 
Well, it isn't proposed until someone proposes it.
 
At first I thought Emojination would be best to write this proposal, to
improve its chances of approval. But these aren't really emoji; they're
actual text-like symbols, of the type that has always been considered
appropriate for Unicode. (They're not "for transport" per se; they are a
secondary indication of colors, meant for the color-blind.)
 
One important question that a proposal would need to answer is whether
these symbols are actually used in the real world. They seem like a good
and innovative new idea, and there is always a desire to help people
with physical challenges; but neither of those is what Unicode is about.
For non-emoji characters, there is usually still a requirement to show a
certain level of actual usage.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
 


From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 14:00:24 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?= via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:00:24 +0200
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
In-Reply-To: <20190429110244.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.acca7f4840.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
References: <20190429110244.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.acca7f4840.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <EE142170-1AEE-4FB6-B9BF-D505B40F097A@telia.com>


> On 29 Apr 2019, at 20:02, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 
>> A very useful think to add to Unicode (for colorblind people) !
>> 
>> http://bestinportugal.com/color-add-project-brings-color-identification-to-the-color-blind
>> 
>> Is it proposed to add as new symbols ?
> 
> Well, it isn't proposed until someone proposes it.
> 
> At first I thought Emojination would be best to write this proposal, to
> improve its chances of approval. But these aren't really emoji; they're
> actual text-like symbols, of the type that has always been considered
> appropriate for Unicode. (They're not "for transport" per se; they are a
> secondary indication of colors, meant for the color-blind.)
> 
> One important question that a proposal would need to answer is whether
> these symbols are actually used in the real world. They seem like a good
> and innovative new idea, and there is always a desire to help people
> with physical challenges; but neither of those is what Unicode is about.
> For non-emoji characters, there is usually still a requirement to show a
> certain level of actual usage.

The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind, seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_(U.S._TV_series)




From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 14:20:32 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Tom Moore via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:20:32 +0000
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
In-Reply-To: <EE142170-1AEE-4FB6-B9BF-D505B40F097A@telia.com>
References: <20190429110244.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.acca7f4840.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
 <EE142170-1AEE-4FB6-B9BF-D505B40F097A@telia.com>
Message-ID: <SN6PR00MB0429335B72E7EBC616666C3AE3390@SN6PR00MB0429.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but it looks like the implementation of the (otherwise interesting) idea is potentially flawed.  They seem to use the same shape for both red and blue.  It is just rotated.  That could cause a lot of confusion. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at unicode.org> On Behalf Of Hans ?berg via Unicode
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 12:00 PM
To: Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
Cc: Unicode Mailing List <unicode at unicode.org>
Subject: Re: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport


> On 29 Apr 2019, at 20:02, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 
>> A very useful think to add to Unicode (for colorblind people) !
>> 
>> http://bestinportugal.com/color-add-project-brings-color-identification-to-the-color-blind   
>> 
>> Is it proposed to add as new symbols ?
> 
> Well, it isn't proposed until someone proposes it.
> 
> At first I thought Emojination would be best to write this proposal, 
> to improve its chances of approval. But these aren't really emoji; 
> they're actual text-like symbols, of the type that has always been 
> considered appropriate for Unicode. (They're not "for transport" per 
> se; they are a secondary indication of colors, meant for the 
> color-blind.)
> 
> One important question that a proposal would need to answer is whether 
> these symbols are actually used in the real world. They seem like a 
> good and innovative new idea, and there is always a desire to help 
> people with physical challenges; but neither of those is what Unicode is about.
> For non-emoji characters, there is usually still a requirement to show 
> a certain level of actual usage.

The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind, seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.



From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 14:34:44 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Doug Ewell via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:34:44 -0700
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
Message-ID: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>

Hans ?berg wrote:
 
> The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind,
> seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in
> black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.
 
Did he use this particular scheme? That is something I would expect to
see on the scheme's web site, and would probably be good evidence for a
proposal.
 
I do see several awards related to the concept, but few examples where
this scheme is actually in use, especially in plain text.
 
I'm not opposed to this type of symbol, but I like to think the classic
rule about "established, not ephemeral" would still apply.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
 


From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 14:46:31 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?= via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:46:31 +0200
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
In-Reply-To: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
References: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <17993A57-EE46-4425-B6BD-F2A61909CB2B@telia.com>


> On 29 Apr 2019, at 21:34, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> Hans ?berg wrote:
> 
>> The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind,
>> seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in
>> black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.
> 
> Did he use this particular scheme? That is something I would expect to
> see on the scheme's web site, and would probably be good evidence for a
> proposal.

They did not describe what system they used, but my impression was different patterns, so it would still look artistic, only in black and white. However it was a long time ago, so my memory may fail me. It is described in some of the DVD extra material.




From unicode at unicode.org  Mon Apr 29 21:32:01 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 22:32:01 -0400
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
In-Reply-To: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
References: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <67e8ec6d-d8c8-1456-f0e2-006f8a95e40e@kli.org>

On 4/29/19 3:34 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Hans ?berg wrote:
>   
>> The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind,
>> seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in
>> black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.
>   
> Did he use this particular scheme? That is something I would expect to
> see on the scheme's web site, and would probably be good evidence for a
> proposal.

And what about existing schemes, such as have already been in use even 
by the esteemed company present on this very list, and in several fonts, 
for the same purpose?? See 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatching_(heraldry)

> I do see several awards related to the concept, but few examples where
> this scheme is actually in use, especially in plain text.
>   
> I'm not opposed to this type of symbol, but I like to think the classic
> rule about "established, not ephemeral" would still apply.

Indeed.

If there were encoded mere color patches (like, say, colored circles, 
possibly in the U+1F534 range or something; just musing here), would 
those already count as encoding these sorts of things, as 
black-and-white font designers would be likely to interpret them in some 
readable fashion, perhaps with hatching. Is it better to have the color 
be canonical and the hatched design a matter of design, or have a set of 
hatched circles with fixed hatching?

~mark


From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 30 02:45:44 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Julian Bradfield via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 08:45:44 +0100 (BST)
Subject: acute-macron hybrid?
Message-ID: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>

The celebrated Bosworth-Toller dictionary of Anglo-Saxon uses a
curious diacritic to mark long vowels. It may be described as a long
shallow acute with a small down-tick at the right.
It contrasts with an acute (quite steep in this typeface) used to mark
accented short vowels.
Both can be seen in the fifth line of the scan at
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/png/oe_bosworthtoller/b0002.png

What is its appropriate Unicode representation?
As a lumper, I would use a macron, but I wonder what a splitter would
say.

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 30 09:58:05 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (Ken Whistler via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:58:05 -0700
Subject: acute-macron hybrid?
In-Reply-To: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
References: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
Message-ID: <b248e951-86c5-f794-8b11-185003af9fcf@att.net>


On 4/30/2019 12:45 AM, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> What is its appropriate Unicode representation?

A macron.

--Ken


From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 30 10:12:34 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?UTF-8?Q?=22J=C3=B6rg_Knappen=22?= via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:12:34 +0200
Subject: Aw: acute-macron hybrid?
In-Reply-To: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
References: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
Message-ID: <trinity-8872648c-496c-43cd-bd2a-1946d32c6d65-1556637154528@3c-app-webde-bs02>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190430/33eb15a9/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 30 10:52:48 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (James Tauber via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:52:48 -0400
Subject: acute-macron hybrid?
In-Reply-To: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
References: <slrnqcfv97.afk.jcb@home.stevens-bradfield.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdVgGLrQcruoYJ-h33CwKRRHrqkGFcZ0ySRL7SwDTnU9dgSmA@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think this is anything more than a macron stylised a particular way
in this typeface.

All the transcriptions I've seen of Bosworth-Toller use a macron.

James

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:43 AM Julian Bradfield via Unicode <
unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> The celebrated Bosworth-Toller dictionary of Anglo-Saxon uses a
> curious diacritic to mark long vowels. It may be described as a long
> shallow acute with a small down-tick at the right.
> It contrasts with an acute (quite steep in this typeface) used to mark
> accented short vowels.
> Both can be seen in the fifth line of the scan at
> http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/png/oe_bosworthtoller/b0002.png
>
> What is its appropriate Unicode representation?
> As a lumper, I would use a macron, but I wonder what a splitter would
> say.
>


-- 
*James Tauber*
Eldarion <https://eldarion.com/> | Scaife Viewer
<https://scaife-viewer.org/> | jktauber.com (Greek Linguistics)
<https://jktauber.com/> | Modelling Music
<https://modelling-music.com/> | Digital
Tolkien <https://digitaltolkien.com/>
Subscribe to my email newsletter <https://buttondown.email/jtauber>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190430/9ef1b2d9/attachment.html>

From unicode at unicode.org  Tue Apr 30 14:17:33 2019
From: unicode at unicode.org (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?= via Unicode)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:17:33 +0200
Subject: Symbols of colors used in Portugal for transport
In-Reply-To: <67e8ec6d-d8c8-1456-f0e2-006f8a95e40e@kli.org>
References: <20190429123444.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.3d307d3f9a.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
 <67e8ec6d-d8c8-1456-f0e2-006f8a95e40e@kli.org>
Message-ID: <0CA4EF90-CA21-476C-AC58-757E7E8B83A5@telia.com>


> On 30 Apr 2019, at 04:32, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> On 4/29/19 3:34 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
>> Hans ?berg wrote:
>>  
>>> The guy who made the artwork for Heroes is completely color-blind,
>>> seeing only in a grayscale, so they agreed he coded the colors in
>>> black and white, and then that was replaced with colors.
>>  Did he use this particular scheme? That is something I would expect to
>> see on the scheme's web site, and would probably be good evidence for a
>> proposal.
> 
> And what about existing schemes, such as have already been in use even by the esteemed company present on this very list, and in several fonts, for the same purpose?  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatching_(heraldry)

It is notable that historically, one started with written abbreviations but later shifted to patterns, so possibly the latter is more effective.

>> I do see several awards related to the concept, but few examples where
>> this scheme is actually in use, especially in plain text.
>>  I'm not opposed to this type of symbol, but I like to think the classic
>> rule about "established, not ephemeral" would still apply.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> If there were encoded mere color patches (like, say, colored circles, possibly in the U+1F534 range or something; just musing here), would those already count as encoding these sorts of things, as black-and-white font designers would be likely to interpret them in some readable fashion, perhaps with hatching. Is it better to have the color be canonical and the hatched design a matter of design, or have a set of hatched circles with fixed hatching?

Also note the screentone and halftone articles [1-2]. In addition, there are reverse Ishihara tests that those with color deficiency can read correctly, but not those with normal color vision, relying an enhanced capability to detect smaller nuances in intensity.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screentone
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone