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

[Asmus Freytag]

Remember, this list is just an informal discussions that might give you 
ideas on how to argue the case for encoding and what likely objections 
you may encounter. It otherwise carries no weight and while it's 
archived, it's not something anyone would turn to in making decisions.

That said.

The cited discussion on SE shows that that there are reasonable 
scenarios where this is used as a symbol/punctuation in text. That it 
would also be "letter-like", that is, derived from a letter shape, makes 
a case for encoding this as a symbol with text representation.

The standalone use on logos makes me wonder whether, should it be 
available, Dutch users would use it as an emoji (e.g. in text messages). 
It can easily be argued from the evidence already shared, that (1) Dutch 
users would readily recognize it (2) there's a desire to not only have 
it in text, but also, at times to have it stand out and act as a full 
statement of its own, very analogous to a check mark with emoji 
presentation.

I would counsel to not view this as an either / or. Perhaps persuing 
this as a standard (text presentation) symbol at first, and then later 
explore whether it falls in the small range of iconic symbols that exist 
in both text and emoji form -- with the check mark being the obvious analog.

The evidence presented in form of the safety inspection sticker makes 
the case that this symbol has acquired a generalized use that is not 
limited to marking student papers. That may have been the origin, but it 
should not limit UTC in taking into account its apparently much broader 
use.

While the solution presented in the context of the TeX SE works well for 
TeX / LaTeX, it doesn't work in general typesetting. This would not be 
the first time that Unicode encodes a symbol that (instead of a PUA 
font) has first been created as a special TeX macro. That would be 
useful to point out. Having a macro that creates an outline on the fly 
is very different from placing a bitmap or other picture in running 
text. It definitely has parallels to creating outlines that you access 
with a PUA code - except that the detour via PUA isn't needed in TeX 
because TeX natively supports named (user defined) macros.

A./

On 2/17/2024 3:26 PM, Freek Dijkstra via Unicode wrote:
> 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/20240217/fc52fa3a/attachment.htm>