Hoefler Text Ornaments

[Gabriel Tellez]

OUTLOOK.ttf is questionable as its an icon font and not a dingbat one
(though you can say the same with webdings), but since it's such a small
font I think it could pass

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:26 PM Marius Spix <marius.spix at web.de> wrote:

> 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
> > >
> > >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220725/28860869/attachment.htm>