Hoefler Text Ornaments

[Marius Spix]

There is also the font "MS Outlook". OUTLOOK.ttf was part of Outlook
97 and had been in circulation for a long time. Maybe it could be
considered as well.

I tried to map the glyphs.

U+F041 = U+1F56D RINGING BELL
U+F042 = U+1F511 KEY
U+F043 = U+1F5D8 CLOCKWISE RIGHT AND LEFT SEMICIRCLE ARROWS
U+F044 = new_codepoint CLOCKWISE RIGHT AND LEFT SEMICIRCLE ARROWS WITH
SOLIDUS
U+F045 = new_codepoint PEOPLE FACING RIGHT
U+F046 = new_codepoint MEETING ROOM (table with three silhouettes) 
U+F047 = U+1F4CE PAPERCLIP
U+F049 = U+1F382 BIRTHDAY CAKE
U+F04A = new_codepoint WAX SEAL (???)
U+F04D = new_codepoint ?????? (glyph has two variants: octagon with two
arrows pointing inthe middle or two crossed pencils)
U+F04E ≈ U+1F4EC OPEN MAILBOX WITH RAISED FLAG (???)

--

Marius Spix


On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 07:30:08 -0400
Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> Turns out there is also Bodoni Onaments (a font that I somehow missed)
> and Type Embellishments One (a font that isn't on my computer but
> sounds like it should be by default?).
> 
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 4:52 PM Karl Pentzlin via Unicode <
> unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> > Am Sonntag, 24. Juli 2022 um 00:07 schrieb James Kass via Unicode:
> >
> > JKvU> In N4127, Karl Pentzlin noted that no effort was made to
> > JKvU> determine
> > unification with existing characters, even in cases where
> > unification was obvious.
> >
> > The title of N4127 (L2/11-276) from 2011-07-15 was "Apple Symbol
> > Fonts: A Quick Survey", simply listing the (then) current use on
> > the PUA by Apple. It was definitively not a proposal (alone by the
> > fact that it listed PUA code points), and it was explicitly stated
> > as subject of that document: “The characters found are listed here
> > without any further interpretation … Especially, no names …  or
> > properties are given, and it is not examined whether they can
> > unified with existing Unicode characters, even for cases where this
> > is obvious.”
> >
> > This document was intended as a starting point for discussions
> > which of these symbols deserve an encoding or unification in
> > Unicode (after the Wingdings/Webdings discussion which resulted in
> > encodings or unifications for almost all of them), but as
> > apparently there was no interest in such discussions, no subsequent
> > documents besides the Apple comment L2/11-309 (especially no
> > proposals) had followed.
> >
> > - Karl Pentzlin
> >
> >