Hoefler Text Ornaments

[Steve Downey]

Yes, because helpful programmers, like me, transcode their marked up
encoding into Unicode. In any case, the cat is out of the bag and the
horses have left the barn, and wingdings and webdings really were
incredibly popular before Unicode standardization, for largely the same
reasons that emoji are today. For another decorative set to be encoded, I
think there would need to be evidence of a body of text using those symbols
for which there is a desire to re-encode today, such that without encoding
the symbols meaning would be lost. It's a deliberately high bar.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:08 AM Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> 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.
>
> 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/ea42c4cb/attachment.htm>