What's the process for proposing a symbol in the Unicode table?

[Freek Dijkstra]

Hi Asmus and others,

Let me answer a few questions, and at the same time pose some more 
questions :)

/Asmus Freytag wrote:/
> If placing the mark in a text environment where emoji would normally 
> be used, would it be seen and understood as "approved" in Dutch 
> culture? Would anyone use it that way? 
Here is an example use as part of an older logo used by the organisation 
(VVN) that performed mandatory safety inspections for vehicles:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Goedkeuringskrul_VVN.jpg

/Asmus Freytag wrote:/
> If someone has made a font or if someone is using a substitute Unicode 
> character, that would amount to evidence of the attempt to use the 
> symbol in (digital) text. If actual examples of use of such 
> substitutes in context can be found, it would suggest the type of use.
While I'm not aware of any font or substitute Unicode character (except 
for unicode-krul.nl, but that's not an independant source), here is a 
Q&A on StackExchange with a few dozen people to get the symbol in an 
electronic document after all:
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/313281/how-to-make-a-krul-unofficial-dutch-symbol-for-ok

@James Kass, Christoph Päper:
I've also read about the use of the Pfennig symbol or the deleatur as 
substitution. However, both the glyph and the meaning are distinctly 
different. In the last answer of that SE Q&A you'll see an attempt to 
make it fit nevertheless by hiding part of the glyph – poorly, if I may add.


That said, the SE Q&A does raise a few more serious questions.

1. Would the above be sufficient for the UTC to show proof of need to 
use in electronic form? On one hand, I think is anecdotal evidence, on 
the other hand, it is real usage. A few decades ago, I participated in a 
standardization body where "running code and rough consensus" was the 
motto. I'm yet unfamiliar with the mores of the Unicode UTC. If the 
above is not sufficient, what would? A statement from a formal 
linguistic body? Or from a linguistic user group?

2. The Q&A correctly mentions that this character has two distinct 
glyphs. While I have a personal preference (just because of the way I 
was thought to write it), I rather consult a expert linguistic about 
this. It is said to be around since somewhere in the 19th century, and I 
do not know how it has changed over the decades, or usage in different 
regions of the world (beside the Netherlands, it is also used in 
countries that are former Dutch colonies).

/Asmus Freytag wrote:/
> However, some symbols, like the check mark, are used in ways that 
> might be similar to the way the approval mark might be used. For 
> example, it can also convey approval and is used in an emojified 
> presentation for that purpose. 
3. Yes. It can convey "approval" but can also mean "incorrect" in Sweden 
according to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_mark#International_differences. And 
this actually seems to indicate that there are more symbols missing. On 
that page, the ·/· symbol in Finland is missing from Unicode and 
Wikipedia uses an image instead (oh, horror), and the hanamaru listed on 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_mark specifically lists a work-around 
because Unicode is missing that symbols too (last line in the "Unicode" 
paragraph). I almost get the feeling that Unicode has overlooked a 
(small) category of these symbols, and only included the English ones. 
Sadly, my knowledge of those other symbols is limited, so I can only 
make a proposal for the Flourish of Approval. But just to check: Unicode 
codepoints represent a glyph, not a meaning, right? So the English ✓ and 
Swedish ✓ have the same codepoint, even though their meaning is different?

Side note: the check mark seems to come from the letter "v" for "vidit" 
("has seen") according to a professor in a Dutch paper, just like the 
glyph for the Flourish of Approval likely comes from the letter "g", 
from "goed" ("good") or "gezien" ("seen").

4. The discussion on character vs emoji, and the legacy set of symbols 
in the U+2700 table (Dingbats) does raise the question: where should a 
new symbol be placed? It is a symbol, but the miscellaneous symbols in 
the U+2700 table (Dingbats) are currently listed under "Emoji & 
Pictograms". However, this is not a pictogram -- while not a character 
in an alphabet (which has ordering), it is also not a pictogram (it does 
not represent a physical object). So looking at 
https://www.unicode.org/charts/, where should this symbol be placed?


With kind regards,
Freek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240218/6892532b/attachment-0001.htm>