Unicode philosophy - technical symbols

[Sławomir Osipiuk]

I believe this is because those symbols are not meant to be included in 
runs of "text" but are designed to be "placed on equipment".

This MIGHT be a valid argument if we didn't already have things like the 
pause and play buttons in Unicode.

There's a long history of "anti-precedent" in Unicode decisions, where some 
set of characters/symbols get included, then a similar set is denied and is 
deemed to be different for hyperspecific, microscopic reasons, or the 
previous inclusion is outright dismissed as a historical mistake which 
"unfortunately" cannot be remedied.

Then the same thing happens again, and again, and it feels like all the 
fancy words and reasoning are there just to hide the fluctuating mood of 
the proposal reviewers on any specific day.

You should make sure your proposal gets reviewed immediately after lunch. 
Studies have shown people are more generous then. ;-)

On Thursday, 26 October 2023, 12:05:54 (-04:00), Piotr Karocki via Unicode 
wrote:

 > I have another question, related to Unicode philosophy (not "Unicode
 > encoding philosophy", but more general "Unicode philosophy" :) ).
 > 
 > We already adopted e.g. Symbols for Legacy Computing (1FB00-1FBFF), 
Emoji,
 > hieroglyphs; why not include all ISO 7000 and IEC 60417 symbols?
 > 
 > ISO 7000 / IEC 60417 Graphical symbols for use on equipment.
 > https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:pub:PUB400008:en
 > 
 > 
 > ---8<---
 > Piotr Karocki
 >