From tom at honermann.net Sat Jan 2 22:15:02 2021 From: tom at honermann.net (Tom Honermann) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 23:15:02 -0500 Subject: 2nd draft proposal: Clarify guidance for use of a BOM as a UTF-8 encoding signature Message-ID: Happy New Year!? And what better way to start off a new year than by discussing the utility (or lack thereof) of BOMs in UTF-8 text! Attached is a 2nd draft of a paper intended to clarify guidance in the Unicode standard for when a BOM should or should not be used in UTF-8 text.? Discussion of the prior draft can be found in the Unicode.org mail archives .? This draft contains the following changes: 1. An abstract was added. 2. The Introduction section was modified as follows: 1. A link to the email thread with initial draft feedback was added. 2. The text was modified to highlight inconsistent interpretation of the existing guidance as opposed to the intent. 3. A quote from section 2.13, "Special Characters" regarding Unicode signatures was added. 3. The Proposed Resolution section was modified as follows: 1. The section was renamed from "Possible Resolutions". 2. The previously discussed possible changes are now presented as two distinct options. 3. Proposed wording was added for the first option. 4. The proposed wording for the second option was directed to section 23.8. 5. Option 2 was modified as follows: 1. The guidance for protocol designers was updated to avoid adding a BOM to ASCII text thus rendering such text non-ASCII. 2. The guidance for text authors regarding when to use a BOM was expanded to cover files that may be opened by applications with different encoding expectations. Thank you to everyone that shared their thoughts on the prior draft. Assuming no substantially new feedback, I plan to submit this paper in a week or so. Tom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Unicode-BOM-guidance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 84875 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jsbien at mimuw.edu.pl Sun Jan 3 02:21:58 2021 From: jsbien at mimuw.edu.pl (Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?=) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2021 09:21:58 +0100 Subject: MUFI (was: Private Use areas) In-Reply-To: <86lg8x9bqb.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> ("Janusz S. \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Bie\=C5\=84\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=22's\?\= message of "Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:30:52 +0200") References: <20180820114749.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.597c9f0c42.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> <30d1d69e-85e6-a956-c486-8757eba1a996@kli.org> <20180821145651.75orx5kfrtlzhfel@angband.pl> <86h8jnab4o.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> <86ftz5cmh0.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> <20180823171105.058ac317@JRWUBU2> <86lg8x9bqb.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <87zh1qzazd.fsf_-_@mimuw.edu.pl> On Thu, Aug 23 2018 at 20:30 +02, Janusz S. Bie? wrote: [...] > I often search characters by name with C-x 8 Return. I would like to use > it also for MUFI characters, Everything takes longer... :-) Cf. https://github.com/jsbien/unicode4polish/ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-01/msg00138.html Happy New Year! Janusz -- , Janusz S. Bien emeryt (emeritus) https://sites.google.com/view/jsbien From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Mon Jan 4 11:17:11 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:17:11 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter Message-ID: Dear list members, I have written a draft for a proposal to add an important letter found in many Old Polish texts, which I think needs and deserves its own Unicode position. The draft can be accessed from https://github.com/jsbien/unicode4polish/blob/master/uninasal.pdf. I would like to submit it next week and would be very happy to receive some feedback from Unicode experts. Thanks a lot and best wishes, Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From jameskass at code2001.com Mon Jan 4 12:03:37 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:03:37 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2021-01-04 5:17 PM, Daniel Bun?i? via Unicode wrote: > Dear list members, > > I have written a draft for a proposal to add an important letter found > in many Old Polish texts, which I think needs and deserves its own > Unicode position. The draft can be accessed from > https://github.com/jsbien/unicode4polish/blob/master/uninasal.pdf. I > would like to submit it next week and would be very happy to receive > some feedback from Unicode experts. > > Thanks a lot and best wishes, > > Daniel > The proposal itself looks good.? It?s well documented with adequate exhibits. But the practice of issuing fonts with glyphs already mapped to proposed characters should be discouraged.? There is no guarantee that the requested code points will be the eventual destination of new characters.? Which means that data prepared using fonts and input methods based on reserved characters might well need to be revised after the fact. From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Mon Jan 4 12:17:42 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:17:42 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 04.01.2021 um 19:03 schrieb James Kass via Unicode: > But the practice of issuing fonts with glyphs already mapped to proposed > characters should be discouraged.? There is no guarantee that the > requested code points will be the eventual destination of new > characters.? Which means that data prepared using fonts and input > methods based on reserved characters might well need to be revised after > the fact. Dear James, I completely agree with that. I only created the font for the purpose of this proposal, and I would not encourage anyone to actually use the character in question before it is officially approved, but I had assumed that it would be good to already place it in the proposed place to demonstrate that it works, and I had thought that putting it on my website would be the easiest way to make it available to the editors. Do you think I should relocate the letter to the Private Use Area in this font? Thanks a lot, Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From jameskass at code2001.com Mon Jan 4 13:32:28 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:32:28 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2021-01-04 6:17 PM, Daniel Bun?i? via Unicode wrote: > I completely agree with that. I only created the font for the purpose > of this proposal, and I would not encourage anyone to actually use the > character in question before it is officially approved, but I had > assumed that it would be good to already place it in the proposed place > to demonstrate that it works, and I had thought that putting it on my > website would be the easiest way to make it available to the editors. > Do you think I should relocate the letter to the Private Use Area in > this font? Moving the glyphs into the P.U.A. might be the most satisfactory approach for many of our colleagues.? At the very least the clarification you provided in your response to my post should be included in the text on the download page as a caveat to users. (And also in any documentation accompanying the download.) https://slavistik.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/buncic/tech#c197307 From doug at ewellic.org Mon Jan 4 15:07:24 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:07:24 -0700 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801d6e2dd$9a88e180$cf9aa480$@ewellic.org> Daniel Bun?i? wrote: > I only created the font for the purpose of this proposal, and I would > not encourage anyone to actually use the character in question before > it is officially approved, but I had assumed that it would be good to > already place it in the proposed place to demonstrate that it works, > and I had thought that putting it on my website would be the easiest > way to make it available to the editors. I think that because the proposed characters have no unusual properties involving connecting, contextual shaping, directionality, etc., it should be apparent that they will "work" without the need to make a font generally available. If UTC approves them, they may ask you for the font at that time and you can offer it to them. If you do feel the need to distribute the font generally, I agree with James that the characters should be placed in the PUA and not at your proposed code points, at least not until they have been approved and preferably not until a Unicode version containing them is released. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 4 17:20:47 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:20:47 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:17:11 +0100 Daniel Buncic via Unicode wrote: > I have written a draft for a proposal to add an important letter found > in many Old Polish texts, which I think needs and deserves its own > Unicode position. The draft can be accessed from > https://github.com/jsbien/unicode4polish/blob/master/uninasal.pdf. I > would like to submit it next week and would be very happy to receive > some feedback from Unicode experts. Why isn't this letter just the Polish form of O WITH STROKE? Using a font with the Scandinavian or IPA form appears to result in legible text. Richard. From kenwhistler at sonic.net Mon Jan 4 17:33:09 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:33:09 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> I'm guessing that a Danish language discussion of Old Polish would not want to confuse the two, and should probably not be burdened with unreliable language-tagged font variants for this particular distinction. The barred-o forms (or phi forms), as discussed in the proposal, look like font-deprived character substitutions, rather than just a glyph variant within the range of original usage. --Ken On 1/4/2021 3:20 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > Why isn't this letter just the Polish form of O WITH STROKE? Using a > font with the Scandinavian or IPA form appears to result in legible > text. > From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 4 19:21:03 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:21:03 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:33:09 -0800 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > I'm guessing that a Danish language discussion of Old Polish would > not want to confuse the two, and should probably not be burdened with > unreliable language-tagged font variants for this particular > distinction. The barred-o forms (or phi forms), as discussed in the > proposal, look like font-deprived character substitutions, rather > than just a glyph variant within the range of original usage. > > --Ken > > On 1/4/2021 3:20 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > Why isn't this letter just the Polish form of O WITH STROKE? Using > > a font with the Scandinavian or IPA form appears to result in > > legible text. Figures 1 and 5 show phi and o-slash forms. Would a German discussion of Old English have any problem with 'g' being used for the forerunner of yogh? The printed forms of the Polish letter are distorted by the highlighting - red circles would be more legible. The examples are especially hard to locate in Figure 5. Richard. From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 4 20:09:11 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Tue Jan 5 03:22:36 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:22:36 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 04.01.2021 um 20:32 schrieb James Kass via Unicode: > Moving the glyphs into the P.U.A. might be the most satisfactory > approach for many of our colleagues. Thanks a lot for the feedback. I have taken the font off the web now. As I said, I had really only put it online for the purpose of the proposal, thinking that only promising to provide a font in due time would not be enough. Obviously that was a misunderstanding. Best wishes, Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Tue Jan 5 04:11:40 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:11:40 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <572e5b96-9e07-478d-6f7e-e255204fc3cd@uni-koeln.de> Am 05.01.2021 um 00:20 schrieb Richard Wordingham via Unicode: > Why isn't this letter just the Polish form of O WITH STROKE? Using a > font with the Scandinavian or IPA form appears to result in legible > text. Sorry for the delay in answering; your question, as you can see, came after midnight in my time zone. Asmus is right that ? is just one of the allographs of the proposed character, but none of its other allographs, including the main (?canonical?) form with the two vertical lines, is an allograph of Scandinavian ?. So we have two independent and very different sets of allographs that happen to overlap in one point. Apart from that, some of the allographs of the letter I am proposing also overlap with other characters ? most notably phi, which also exists as a letter of the Latin alphabet at U+0278, so we might with just as much ? or little ? justification treat the proposed letter as a variant of . However, we would not want ? to be allowed to be used as a variant of ?, or vice versa. (This would be a mess in IPA, where they denote different sounds.) Moreover, I have tried to show in the text of the proposal that the default shape of the character should really be the one with the two little vertical lines and that ? only appears under very specific circumstances: ? In the original medieval texts: In very cursive manuscripts, where all the vertical lines are slanted, the vertical stroke in our letter also appears as in ?. In a way, the similarity to the Scandinavian ? is an optical illusion, because in theory the cursive form of ? should have a stroke that is even more slanted than the slant of the actually vertical line of our letter. One might say that the _cursive_ shape of the Old Polish nasal vowel looks like the _regular_ shape of Scandinavian ?, but within the same font variant they would ? theoretically ? always be slightly different. ? In modern scholarly texts: Wherever people have had the technical means to determine the shape of the letter, they have chosen the shape with the two vertical lines (fig. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 of the proposal; and fig. 10 for an alternative shape). Fig. 12?16 show situations of technical constraints, where people did not have the technical means to choose the ideal shape of the letter. That this is the case can be clearly seen from the use of integral symbols instead of long ? in fig. 12 and from the manual addition of strokes in fig. 13. Only in such cases did they choose a form that more or less resembles the actually intended shape, viz. ?, ?, or ?. But this is really like writing ue in German because the keyboard does not contain a key for ?, like using beta ? instead of German sharp ?, like using 'typewriter quotes' instead of ?real quotes?, like writing <=> instead of ?, etc. As I understand it, Unicode provides means for exchanging characters in their actual shape and therefore does not treat something like ? as a mere variant of <=>. I hope this makes it a bit clearer. Thanks again and all the best, Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 8 18:14:59 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 00:14:59 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800 Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > It seems clear that this letter has a range of allographs? in Polish > that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other letters. That > should not be the sole basis on which to propose a unification. The Polish letter is clearly a modified LATIN LETTER O. The diacritic is a slash, and diacritics are unified on the basis of shape. The debate should therefore be whether the slash is sufficiently different from that of Danish - or combines sufficiently differently. Polish and modern Greek acute accents are steeper than western European acute accents, but are still unified. Richard. From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Sat Jan 9 04:45:36 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:45:36 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: Am 09.01.2021 um 01:14 schrieb Richard Wordingham via Unicode: > The Polish letter is clearly a modified LATIN LETTER O. The > diacritic is a slash, and diacritics are unified on the basis of > shape. The debate should therefore be whether the slash is > sufficiently different from that of Danish - or combines sufficiently > differently. Polish and modern Greek acute accents are steeper than > western European acute accents, but are still unified. I completely agree with this. And I would argue that a "slash" that in most cases occurs as a vertical short line at the top of the o plus a vertical short line at the bottom of the o, both of them touching the outlines of the o but with no line crossing the interior of the o itself, is quite different from a slash that is always diagonal, always one long line and always crossing the interior of the o. I do not think Danes and Norwegians would be happy if we treated the former "form of slashed o" as a legitimate variant of the latter slashed ? that could easily be used to spell Danish and Norwegian words. Even an unbroken but vertical line through the o (another variant of the proposed new character) would certainly be perceived as wrong. This is quite different from the question whether the acute accent has a 30? or a 60? angle, about which most French, Spanish, Polish, and Greek writers could not care less (except for a few typography specialists of course). Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 9 13:08:33 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:08:33 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 9 16:14:42 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 14:14:42 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> <7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <8f894fa9-889f-419c-c7bc-a2365098a22b@ix.netcom.com> On 1/9/2021 11:08 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 1/8/2021 4:14 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800 >> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: >> >>> It seems clear that this letter has a range of allographs? in Polish >>> that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other letters. That >>> should not be the sole basis on which to propose a unification. >> The Polish letter is clearly a modified LATIN LETTER O. The diacritic >> is a slash, and diacritics are unified on the basis of shape. The >> debate should therefore be whether the slash is sufficiently different >> from that of Danish - or combines sufficiently differently. Polish and >> modern Greek acute accents are steeper than western European acute >> accents, but are still unified. >> >> Richard. >> > It seems that this _*diacritic *_has a range of allographs in Polish > that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other diacritics > That should not be the sole bases on which to propose a unification. > > In addition, it appears that the shape is sometimes contracted to that > of a phi. That would be an allograph for the composite letter, because > phi is not decomposable. That also argues against unifying the diacritics. > (Even if the "phi" allograph is ordinarily more of a handwritten form, it may show up in "handwriting style" fonts, so the fact that is would show perhaps only in certain styles is not a reason against considering its impact on the putative encoding.) > > > Finally, the letter should be encoded as precomposed only, to avoid the > issues we've had for other characters where the "nominal" diacritic > indicated in the decomposition would force a shape that's not compatible > with the range of allographs. > PS: some of the allographs for the diacritic strike me as something other than an "over-strike". The attached two sections or the partial vertical over-strike of the top? of the bowl only would normally not be decomposed, because they are more like an "attached" diacritic than an overlay. This further argues for not decomposing this character. A./ > > A./ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 9 17:30:26 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:30:26 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <8f894fa9-889f-419c-c7bc-a2365098a22b@ix.netcom.com> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> <7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com> <8f894fa9-889f-419c-c7bc-a2365098a22b@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20210109233026.72168354@JRWUBU2> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 14:14:42 -0800 Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > Finally, the letter should be encoded as precomposed only, to avoid > > the issues we've had for other characters where the "nominal" > > diacritic indicated in the decomposition would force a shape that's > > not compatible with the range of allographs. > > > PS: some of the allographs for the diacritic strike me as something > other than > an "over-strike". The attached two sections or the partial vertical > over-strike > of the top? of the bowl only would normally not be decomposed, > because they are more like an "attached" diacritic than an overlay. > This further argues for not decomposing this character. This is very like the slash in the dollar sign, which may likewise be reduced to projections above and below. I don't think there is any doubt that this Polish character should be encoded as an indecomposable character; the question is whether it has already been encoded. Richard. From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 9 17:54:56 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 15:54:56 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210109233026.72168354@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> <7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com> <8f894fa9-889f-419c-c7bc-a2365098a22b@ix.netcom.com> <20210109233026.72168354@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <9af56573-2bba-1be0-9958-284dd1d6811d@ix.netcom.com> On 1/9/2021 3:30 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 14:14:42 -0800 > Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > >>> Finally, the letter should be encoded as precomposed only, to avoid >>> the issues we've had for other characters where the "nominal" >>> diacritic indicated in the decomposition would force a shape that's >>> not compatible with the range of allographs. >>> >> PS: some of the allographs for the diacritic strike me as something >> other than >> an "over-strike". The attached two sections or the partial vertical >> over-strike >> of the top? of the bowl only would normally not be decomposed, >> because they are more like an "attached" diacritic than an overlay. >> This further argues for not decomposing this character. > This is very like the slash in the dollar sign, which may likewise > be reduced to projections above and below. I don't think there is any > doubt that this Polish character should be encoded as an indecomposable > character; the question is whether it has already been encoded. > It is very much unlike the case for $. For that letter, as originally encoded everywhere, there are a number of accepted allographs. The encoding covers all of them. (And none are decomposable). The Polish letter has a range of allographs that include shapes used for other letters. Those letters do not have any such allographs. (And some of the allographs shown in the proposal match different letters that are well distinct from each other as encoded today). In my reading, the range for a letter's allographs can (and should) be one of the factors that determines its identity. Part of that evaluation needs to also focus on what is the most common (modern) allograph. In the current instance I see nothing that would support a unification to an existing character, unless Unicode were to resurrect the discredited concept of "arms-length unification", or unification based on superficial similarities. A./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Sat Jan 9 18:11:09 2021 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:11:09 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210109233026.72168354@JRWUBU2> References: <20210109233026.72168354@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <5A414DFC-17AC-42FC-B3BA-FAC21FA546EB@evertype.com> In my judgement this is not decomposable and the character cannot be unified with an existing character. Michael Everson http://evertype.com > On 9 Jan 2021, at 23:33, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > I don't think there is any > doubt that this Polish character should be encoded as an indecomposable > character; the question is whether it has already been encoded. > > Richard. From pandey at umich.edu Sat Jan 9 19:08:46 2021 From: pandey at umich.edu (Anshuman Pandey) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 19:08:46 -0600 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <5A414DFC-17AC-42FC-B3BA-FAC21FA546EB@evertype.com> References: <5A414DFC-17AC-42FC-B3BA-FAC21FA546EB@evertype.com> Message-ID: <610AD00E-3413-42B2-9BA6-EA20F3E0B349@umich.edu> For what it?s worth, I agree with Michael. > On Jan 9, 2021, at 6:11 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > ?In my judgement this is not decomposable and the character cannot be unified with an existing character. > > Michael Everson > http://evertype.com > >> On 9 Jan 2021, at 23:33, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: >> >> I don't think there is any >> doubt that this Polish character should be encoded as an indecomposable >> character; the question is whether it has already been encoded. >> >> Richard. > > From list.adam at twardoch.com Sat Jan 9 21:21:29 2021 From: list.adam at twardoch.com (Adam Twardoch (Lists)) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 04:21:29 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter Message-ID: I appreciate you formulating the proposal. The naming of the proposed characters "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" is weird. There seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that would include the functional category "vowel" in its name. And there seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that refers to a particular language. The naming of Unicode characters from the Latin script tends to be visually descriptive. So the proposal goes against established Unicode practice. But other than that, I think the proposal is worthwhile. The visual modification done to get the ?horned O?, as this letter was sometimes called, was very different from the Danish practice, and there was quite some variance. However, this variance was very different from that of the Danish practice. I don?t think this letter can be decomposed into an O followed by some existing diacritical mark. I think these letters should be added to Unicode, but a more suitable name should be chosen. Best, Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jameskass at code2001.com Sat Jan 9 22:24:16 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 04:24:16 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2021-01-10 3:21 AM, Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode wrote: > But other than that, I think the proposal is worthwhile. The visual > modification done to get the ?horned O?, as this letter was sometimes > called, was very different from the Danish practice, and there was quite > some variance. However, this variance was very different from that of the > Danish practice. I don?t think this letter can be decomposed into an O > followed by some existing diacritical mark. > > I think these letters should be added to Unicode, but a more suitable name > should be chosen. Quoting from the proposal, ?A further, shorter, alternative would be LATIN CAPITAL/SMALL LETTER HORNED O, referring to the letter?s name /o rogate/ ?horned o? in colloquial use among Polish specialists (e. g. Bie? 2020:2).? That might be workable unless it is felt that there may be confusion between the proposed character pair and LATIN CAPITAL/SMALL LETTER O WITH HORN. From everson at evertype.com Sat Jan 9 22:56:51 2021 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 04:56:51 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> LATIN LETTER OLD POLISH O will do fine. Michael Everson http://evertype.com > On 10 Jan 2021, at 04:02, Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode wrote: > > ? > I appreciate you formulating the proposal. > > The naming of the proposed characters "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" is weird. > > There seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that would include the functional category "vowel" in its name. And there seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that refers to a particular language. > > The naming of Unicode characters from the Latin script tends to be visually descriptive. So the proposal goes against established Unicode practice. > > But other than that, I think the proposal is worthwhile. The visual modification done to get the ?horned O?, as this letter was sometimes called, was very different from the Danish practice, and there was quite some variance. However, this variance was very different from that of the Danish practice. I don?t think this letter can be decomposed into an O followed by some existing diacritical mark. > > I think these letters should be added to Unicode, but a more suitable name should be chosen. > > Best, > Adam From list.adam at twardoch.com Sun Jan 10 01:43:28 2021 From: list.adam at twardoch.com (Adam Twardoch (Lists)) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:43:28 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> References: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> Message-ID: LATIN LETTER OLD POLISH O suggests that this is for the O as it existed in Old Polish. But this is not true ? the O in Old Polish was the regular O, but in addition, there was a NASAL O (most likely similar to ?? i.e. akin to the French "on" in "gar?on", while ? was probably pronounced ?? back then). On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:56 AM Michael Everson wrote: > LATIN LETTER OLD POLISH O will do fine. > > Michael Everson > http://evertype.com > > > On 10 Jan 2021, at 04:02, Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode < > unicode at unicode.org> wrote: > > > > ? > > I appreciate you formulating the proposal. > > > > The naming of the proposed characters "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OLD POLISH > NASAL VOWEL" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" is weird. > > > > There seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that > would include the functional category "vowel" in its name. And there seems > not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that refers to a > particular language. > > > > The naming of Unicode characters from the Latin script tends to be > visually descriptive. So the proposal goes against established Unicode > practice. > > > > But other than that, I think the proposal is worthwhile. The visual > modification done to get the ?horned O?, as this letter was sometimes > called, was very different from the Danish practice, and there was quite > some variance. However, this variance was very different from that of the > Danish practice. I don?t think this letter can be decomposed into an O > followed by some existing diacritical mark. > > > > I think these letters should be added to Unicode, but a more suitable > name should be chosen. > > > > Best, > > Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Sun Jan 10 02:05:49 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:05:49 -0800 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> Message-ID: <2e913da6-4a18-71e9-0aad-fb7c12df1137@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de Sun Jan 10 04:47:44 2021 From: daniel.buncic at uni-koeln.de (Daniel Buncic) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:47:44 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> Message-ID: Am 10.01.2021 um 08:43 schrieb Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode: > in addition, there was a NASAL O (most likely similar to ?? i.e. akin > to the French "on" in "gar?on", while ? was probably pronounced ?? > back then). Just a small correction: During the Old Polish period, there was only a single nasal vowel in Polish, and it is plausible to assume that this was /?/, a kind of ?neutral? vowel between modern ? /??/ and ? /??/, into which it split (and indeed also between Proto-Slavic *? /??/ and *? /??/, since the Old Polish /?/ was itself the result of the merger of these). It does seem confusing, but this o-like Old Polish letter really denoted a nasal a, while the Modern Polish ? denotes a nasal o. Consequently, a name ?nasal o? could only refer to the letter?s visual form, it would not directly describe its pronunciation. Personally, I would be fine with any of the names proposed, or yet to be proposed. Thanks a lot! Daniel -- Prof. Dr. Daniel Bun?i? =================================================== Slavisches Institut der Universit?t zu K?ln Weyertal 137, D-50931 K?ln Telefon: +49 (0)221 470-3355 Telefax: +49 (0)221 470-5001 Sprechstunden: http://ukoeln.de/12FE3 =================================================== Breslauer Stra?e 54, D-50321 Br?hl Telefon: +49 (0)2232 150 42 80 =================================================== E-Mail: daniel at buncic.de Homepage: http://daniel.buncic.de/ Threema: https://threema.id/8M375R5K Skype: danielbuncic Academia: http://uni-koeln.academia.edu/buncic =================================================== From kent.b.karlsson at bahnhof.se Sun Jan 10 10:20:19 2021 From: kent.b.karlsson at bahnhof.se (Kent Karlsson) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 17:20:19 +0100 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> References: <20210104232047.74440615@JRWUBU2> <2cf0979c-915e-201a-6915-39bbaf8c7622@sonic.net> <20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2> <20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2> Message-ID: <8F4E327C-9BB1-40B1-AC7C-DD583B88A0A0@bahnhof.se> Note that ? and ? are regarded as (sort of) equivalent in Scandinavia. It?s just that ? is used in Denmark and Norway, and ? is used in Sweden and Finland. Indeed they are also ?the same? as (French) ?. In ?old times? ? was written as O? (There is a COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E on top of the O, not sure if that survives transport, or the system/font you use?) Though it is true that the glyph for ? sometimes has no ?interior? part of the stroke, and in that case would look much like ?HORNED O?, but isn?t. /Kent K > 9 jan. 2021 kl. 01:14 skrev Richard Wordingham via Unicode : > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800 > Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > >> It seems clear that this letter has a range of allographs in Polish >> that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other letters. That >> should not be the sole basis on which to propose a unification. > > The Polish letter is clearly a modified LATIN LETTER O. The diacritic > is a slash, and diacritics are unified on the basis of shape. The > debate should therefore be whether the slash is sufficiently different > from that of Danish - or combines sufficiently differently. Polish and > modern Greek acute accents are steeper than western European acute > accents, but are still unified. > > Richard. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Sun Jan 10 14:54:18 2021 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:54:18 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: References: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> Message-ID: <4A25B3D5-81B1-4FC4-B51F-27D8D7940AFA@evertype.com> Names are to be unique, not encyclopaedic. (The letter) O is (the letter) O. This is an O unique to Old Polish. Nothing to do with the sound (especially if it was /?/ or /?). Just a variety of (the letter) O used in Old Polish. Michael Everson http://evertype.com > On 10 Jan 2021, at 07:43, Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode wrote: > > LATIN LETTER OLD POLISH O suggests that this is for the O as it existed in Old Polish. But this is not true ? the O in Old Polish was the regular O, but in addition, there was a NASAL O (most likely similar to ?? i.e. akin to the French "on" in "gar?on", while ? was probably pronounced ?? back then). > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:56 AM Michael Everson wrote: > LATIN LETTER OLD POLISH O will do fine. > > Michael Everson > http://evertype.com > > > On 10 Jan 2021, at 04:02, Adam Twardoch (Lists) via Unicode wrote: > > > > ? > > I appreciate you formulating the proposal. > > > > The naming of the proposed characters "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER OLD POLISH NASAL VOWEL" is weird. > > > > There seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that would include the functional category "vowel" in its name. And there seems not to be a single Unicode letter from the Latin script that refers to a particular language. > > > > The naming of Unicode characters from the Latin script tends to be visually descriptive. So the proposal goes against established Unicode practice. > > > > But other than that, I think the proposal is worthwhile. The visual modification done to get the ?horned O?, as this letter was sometimes called, was very different from the Danish practice, and there was quite some variance. However, this variance was very different from that of the Danish practice. I don?t think this letter can be decomposed into an O followed by some existing diacritical mark. > > > > I think these letters should be added to Unicode, but a more suitable name should be chosen. > > > > Best, > > Adam > From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 12 12:25:50 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:25:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: A colour font for abstract emoji for personal pronouns Message-ID: <1693eb1b.1253.176f7d8d076.Webtop.218@btinternet.com> I have produced and published a colour font for abstract emoji for personal pronouns. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_novel.htm The font is free to use, no registration required. William Overington Tuesday 12 January 2021 From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 13 05:55:21 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:55:21 +0000 Subject: Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter In-Reply-To: <4A25B3D5-81B1-4FC4-B51F-27D8D7940AFA@evertype.com> References: <4EC5A6FF-5AC4-4F03-9367-C8572CC8A6BD@evertype.com> <4A25B3D5-81B1-4FC4-B51F-27D8D7940AFA@evertype.com> Message-ID: <20210113115521.08c38021@JRWUBU2> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:54:18 +0000 Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > Names are to be unique, not encyclopaedic. (The letter) O is (the > letter) O. This is an O unique to Old Polish. Nothing to do with the > sound (especially if it was /?/ or /?). Just a variety of (the > letter) O used in Old Polish. As I understand it, it was originally an additional letter, and has always been used to contrast with the letter 'o'. Basically, it's a letter 'o' with a diacritic in the form of a slash through it, though as with other old letter forms, portions of the slash may be uninked. As the behaviour of 'overstrike' diacritics is unpredictable and the Latin script is privileged, the standard will only support the precomposed form. Richard. From kent.b.karlsson at bahnhof.se Tue Jan 19 13:28:28 2021 From: kent.b.karlsson at bahnhof.se (Kent Karlsson) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:28:28 +0100 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_Unicode_is_universal=2C_so_how_come_that_universa?= =?utf-8?Q?lity_doesn=E2=80=99t_apply_to_digits=3F?= In-Reply-To: <47370a52-bdc7-fab2-7458-8334f8fd8bee@ix.netcom.com> References: <000201d6d3c1$c13ede40$43bc9ac0$@ewellic.org> <94e3f83b-ef13-b442-c5ff-c827211194fa@kli.org> <20201229195805.4c45425c@JRWUBU2> <47370a52-bdc7-fab2-7458-8334f8fd8bee@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: >> 29 dec. 2020 kl. 22:08 skrev Asmus Freytag via Unicode : > It's also Unicode's (separate) business to provide the information needed to parse numbers, at least for decimal place-value systems, > For digits used in decimal place-value systems where the most significant digit comes first; those have general category Nd. > and included in that, to collect data on locale preference for number formatting. > Well, CLDR?s business (though a Unicode consortium project); not as part of the Unicode standard. Apart from place-value systems, CLDR also covers some other numbering systems that are still in modern use in certain contexts: armenian-lower, armenian-upper, cyrillic-lower, ethiopic, georgian, greek-lower, greek-upper, hebrew, hebrew-item, roman-lower, roman-upper, tamil (several of these have extensions for zero and negative; and some have been updated from my initial submission to CLDR). See https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/blob/master/common/rbnf/root.xml or https://github.com/unicode-cldr/cldr-rbnf/blob/master/rbnf/root.json. Truely historical (i.e. no longer used) numbering systems are not (yet) covered. However, if you know Suzhou and counting rod numbering systems, you can help me confirm or improve the rules in CLDR ticket https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-4473 (look towards the end of the ticket, there are several versions of the rules there). CJK numbering systems (not considering Suzhou and counting rod) are not in CLDR's ?root? but are covered in the respective locales as spell-out rules (I found that to be a more appropriate analysis, and the CLDR committee apparently agreed, at least technically). For instance, in https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/blob/master/common/rbnf/zh.xml you find spellout-cardinal-financial. I will not list them all here, check them out in CLDR?s source (one problem is the different formats for the rules?). You can check out the rules, and result samples, by using https://st.unicode.org/cldr-apps/numbers.jsp. It is not written by me, but it is a very handy tool for checking RBNF rules in CLDR as well at testing new RBNF rules (or rulesets actually). Caveat: To make new rules, or update/fix existing ones, requires some programming skills. /Kent Karlsson > And that's where the story, and this discussion, effectively ends. > > A./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zachlym at indolering.com Sat Jan 23 21:20:25 2021 From: zachlym at indolering.com (Zach Lym) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 19:20:25 -0800 Subject: Canonical Equivalence Clarification/Normalization Generics Message-ID: I'm kinda a newbie and missed this document [1] before the UTC meeting and I wanted to continue discussion here. I am puzzled that people thought NFx, NFKx, and NFxy would be too confusing, as I found it in casual usage in discussions at the IETF, Linux, and W3C. I personally think that it comes quite naturally when corresponding with others, as it is much shorter to type than `isCanonicallyEquivalent` and intermixes with NFC/NFD/NFKD/NFKC. Would there be an isCompatibilityEquivalent as well? What are the plans for NFx in UAX15? Thank you, -Zach Lym [1]: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21012-utc166-properties-recs.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 26 14:24:55 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:24:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Abstract emoji Message-ID: I have now produced a web page that displays all sixteen of the abstract emoji thus far included in the Mariposa font. These sixteen are for personal pronouns. The font is available from the web, but there is no need to download it and install it separately in order to view this web page as the web page picks it up automatically. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_glyphs.htm The glyphs are not encoded in a Private Use Area, but use glyph substitution from sequences in the Mariposa code space. The glyphs are designed such that there is a coherent structure to them so that remembering each of their meanings is simplified. Hopefully in due course abstract emoji will become acceptable for encoding into regular Unicode. There is a feedback note already in place for Unicode Technical Committee meeting 167. I have been designing some abstract emoji glyphs to express relationships, such as father, aunt, sister and so on. I have drafted designs for 28 abstract emoji for this collection, with glyph substitution sequences such as %811 %842 and %852 respectively. I am also designing some abstract emoji for things like 'yes' and 'no' in green and red respectively. Traditional pictographic emoji are fine and good when the concept can be expressed using an image. Abstract emoji add the ability to express things that cannot be expressed with a non-abstract image. All in a language-independent, script independent, form. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_novel.htm Hopefully this progress and discussions that may take place in this mailing list will help consideration of accepting abstract emoji into regular Unicode at meeting 167 of The Unicode Technical Committee. William Overington Tuesday 26 January 2021 From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Jan 28 12:03:50 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:03:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Abstract emoji In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68d01faf.e0e.1774a2a6fa5.Webtop.229@btinternet.com> Nine more abstract emoji glyphs have been added to the Mariposa font. The new version of the font has been added to the web, replacing the earlier version. These recently added abstract emoji glyphs are for yes, indefinite yes, somewhat yes, needing more information, not knowing, refusing to answer, somewhat no, indefinite no, no. These nine are encoded in the Mariposa code space using %791 through to %799 as the codes. So they are usable interoperably now. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_glyphs3.htm http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_novel.htm > I have been designing some abstract emoji glyphs to express > relationships, such as father, aunt, sister and so on. I have drafted > designs for 28 abstract emoji for this collection, with glyph > substitution sequences such as %811 %842 and %852 respectively. I have added another 14 designs, all gender neutral, so that there are designs for father, mother, parent; and for sister, brother, sibling and so on, but these are not in the present version of the font as they have not been drawn in the fontmaking program. I have it in mind that the 14 for male are blue and orange, those for female pink and orange; and those for gender neutral as light purple and orange. In each case the orange part being the same for the male, female and gender neutral glyphs of each set of three glyphs. In addition the blue, pink and light purple parts are the same shape for each group of 14, yet the shapes are different from group to group so that monochrome renderings will be clearly different. So the colours are helpful but are not essential to conveying the meaning. Hopefully these and other abstract emoji will become added into regular Unicode. William Overington Thursday 28 January 2021 ------ Original Message ------ From: "William_J_G Overington via Unicode" To: unicode at unicode.org Sent: Tuesday, 2021 Jan 26 At 20:24 Subject: Abstract emoji I have now produced a web page that displays all sixteen of the abstract emoji thus far included in the Mariposa font. These sixteen are for personal pronouns. The font is available from the web, but there is no need to download it and install it separately in order to view this web page as the web page picks it up automatically. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_glyphs.htm The glyphs are not encoded in a Private Use Area, but use glyph substitution from sequences in the Mariposa code space. The glyphs are designed such that there is a coherent structure to them so that remembering each of their meanings is simplified. Hopefully in due course abstract emoji will become acceptable for encoding into regular Unicode. There is a feedback note already in place for Unicode Technical Committee meeting 167. I have been designing some abstract emoji glyphs to express relationships, such as father, aunt, sister and so on. I have drafted designs for 28 abstract emoji for this collection, with glyph substitution sequences such as %811 %842 and %852 respectively. I am also designing some abstract emoji for things like 'yes' and 'no' in green and red respectively. Traditional pictographic emoji are fine and good when the concept can be expressed using an image. Abstract emoji add the ability to express things that cannot be expressed with a non-abstract image. All in a language-independent, script independent, form. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/mariposa_novel.htm Hopefully this progress and discussions that may take place in this mailing list will help consideration of accepting abstract emoji into regular Unicode at meeting 167 of The Unicode Technical Committee. William Overington Tuesday 26 January 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Fri Jan 29 14:23:08 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:23:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Abstract emoji Message-ID: <312e5918.6ca.1774fd05276.Webtop.220@btinternet.com> I have continued to make progress with designing abstract emoji for relationships. Please find attached a graphic displaying sixteen glyphs. The graphic is a detail from a print screen image of a display produced in Microsoft Edge using a COLR/CPAL colour font that I have designed and produced. The glyphs represent the following relationships. . father mother parent uncle aunt (name?) grandfather grandmother grandparent husband wife spouse If it helps, I think of the middle part of the male glyphs as a stylized square, the middle part of the female glyphs as a stylized lozenge (based on heraldry), and the middle part of the gender neutral glyphs as a stylized circle. I realize that those stylizations for lozenge and circle are not ikmathic to the originals, but I wanted to keep the designs on a grid. Each glyph is different from all of the others in monochrome too. Most of the relationships are by kinship or marriage yet I have also designed glyphs for friend and guardian. William Overington Friday 29 January 2021 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mariposa_16_relationship_glyphs.png Type: image/png Size: 4082 bytes Desc: not available URL: