Hoefler Text Ornaments

[Rebecca Bettencourt]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 7:03 AM Gabriel Tellez <gtbot2007 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Sure. Usually from the Insert Symbol function in Microsoft Word.




> 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/ae493afc/attachment-0001.htm>