Egyptian Hieroglyph Man with a Laptop
Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Feb 12 14:04:01 CST 2020
Le 12/02/2020 à 20:38, Marius Spix a écrit :
> That is a pretty interesting finding. This glyph was not part of
It is, as *U+1355A EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A-12-051
> but has been first seen in
> The only "evidence" for this glyph I could find, is a stock photo,
> which is clearly made in the 21th century.
I don’t even think it could qualify, since I think the woman in this
picture would correspond to another hieroglyph, from the B series
(B-04), not a A-12.
> I know, that some font creators include so-called trap characters,
> similar to trap streets which are often found in maps to catch copyright
> violations. But it is also possible that the someone wanted to smuggle
> an easter-egg into Unicode or just test if the quality assurance works.
The question is then: was this well known about people reading
hieroglyphs who checked this proposal? If not, it is very difficult to
trust other hieroglyphs, especially if the first explanation is the good
one: some trap characters could actually look like real ones. Except of
course if we accept some hieroglyphs for compatibility purpose, but this
is not mentioned as a valid reason in any propoal yet.
> In my opinion, this is an invalid character, which should not be
> included in Unicode.
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2020 19:12:14 +0100
> Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>> Dear Unicode list members (CC Michel Suignard),
>> the Unicode proposal L2/20-068
>> “Revised draft for the encoding of an extended Egyptian Hieroglyphs
>> repertoire, Groups A to N” (
>> https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20068-n5128-ext-hieroglyph.pdf ) by
>> Michel Suignard contains a very interesting hieroglyph at position
>> *U+13579 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A-12-054, which seems to represent a man
>> with a laptop, as can be obvious in the attached image.
>> I am curious about the source of this hieroglyph: in the table
>> acompannying the document, its sources are said to be “Hieroglyphica
>> extension (various sources)” with number A58C and “Hornung & Schenkel
>> (2007, last modified in 2015)”, but with no number (A;), which seems
>> unique in the table. It leads me to think this glyph only exist in
>> some modern font, either as a joke, or for some computer related
>> modern use. Can anyone infirm or confirm this intuition ?
More information about the Unicode