Hoefler Text Ornaments

[Gabriel Tellez]

Do normal people (who don’t know what a Unicode is) even use
Webdings/Windings with the Unicode code points? Because if they don’t then
it’s no different then people using the PUA for these fonts.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:15 PM Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> Despite my first response to this thread taking a dig at Microsoft, my
> actual understanding is they didn't get Wingdings and Webdings into Unicode
> for no reason; they were able to demonstrate that there are a considerable
> number of web pages, emails, and documents using those fonts. They simply
> enjoy a level of popularity that none of the other fonts mentioned in this
> thread do. Very few people are using Hoefler Text Ornaments, Type
> Embellishments One, etc. in their documents, and the ones who are seem to
> get by just fine using private use code points. Compare the many people
> confused by the stray J appearing in old emails stripped of their
> formatting (in which the specification of Wingdings for that character
> would display it as a smiley face).
>
> If you feel there is enough of a case for Hoefler Text Ornaments, you can
> certainly create a proposal. But you'll have to at the very least provide
> some statistics as to how many people actually use them. Also consider that
> whatever statistics Apple may have had, it certainly wasn't enough to
> convince them they needed encoding.
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 5:29 PM James Kass via Unicode <
> unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> As a visual aid, the MS Outlook glyphs are provided in the attached
>> graphic file.  Some of the glyphs noted by Marius Spix appear to have
>> been removed from the font by the time XP arrived, the graphic shows the
>> font version included with Windows XP.
>>
>> Having established that certain glyphs exist, the next question is
>> whether people are exchanging them in plain-text.  If not, then could it
>> be demonstrated that users would benefit from the ability to do so?  If
>> not, then there is no path towards their encoding in the Standard.
>>
>> On 2022-07-25 11:51 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:
>> > 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/20220726/5bce46c6/attachment.htm>