Recycling symbols

[Asmus Freytag]

On 4/20/2025 12:12 PM, Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote:
>
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> *From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Asmus Freytag via Unicode
> *Sent:* Sunday, 20 April 2025 20:25
> *To:* unicode at corp.unicode.org
> *Subject:* Re: Recycling symbols
>
> On 4/20/2025 12:43 AM, Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote:
>
>     Seems like writing proposal is harder than I thought :)
>
> Yes. it's a bit of work, but remember, once a character is encoded, it 
> is forever. That means that it is worthwhile to spend a bit of time at 
> the start to get it right. Even if that can be a bit frustrating.
>
> It is not only frustrating - I cannot create glyphs. I can only create 
> (maybe sufficient) justification for adding such symbols :)
>
I wouldn't worry, at this stage, about being able to create glyphs. 
Because they are variations of existing glyphs, that part of the process 
is easily managed -- once there's a decision made that the justification 
is compelling. So, focus on that. (For illustration, the samples from 
Wikipedia are a good stand-in).
>
> In some cases, the version you cite is the original edition from 1994. 
> However, the notes indicate that some revisions took place in 2018.
>
> Changing from original version to version with all revisions 
> incorporated is only one click away :)
>
No, you don't get to tell reviewers to "click through". All URLs must be 
to the final document you are citing (and if you'd like to cite the 
overview page, that is a separate reference).
>
> Your task goes beyond collecting a bibliography like this. You need to 
> cite individual passages, with images as appropriate. If you can, it 
> would be appropriate to show some examples where these appear in 
> print, not just embossed in the container. This serves two purposes: 
> to document that these can be considered "text" and that there is 
> evidence that the regulation is effective.
>
> This symbols appears on most labels in EU. It should appear on all 
> labels, though, as it is required by law.
>
> Maybe, if using such symbols be less cumbersome (without requirement 
> of mixing graphic with text), such symbols would be used more frequently?
>
> Most frequently, labels contains two symbols: one for foil (or similar 
> package, so plastic - from Unicode), and second is for label (mainly 
> paper - outside Unicode).
>
> Next week I can collect some product packages/labels photos. But 
> still, I would not create glyphs…
>
See above wrt glyphs.

Visual attestation is key. And for the regulatory documents, any passage 
that you think is important to reviewers must be excerpted (with a link 
to its source). The proposal must be readable without accessing the 
references.

>     I thing best solution would be only "triangle" with digits, no abbreviation
>
>     (it can be added using normal letters). And best of best, as "combining
>
>     recycling triangle", if such combining is possible (probably it is not
>
>     possible).
>
> Finally, you need to address the issue of what should be encoded in 
> plain text.
>
> Two digits number inside recycling triangle. Not 'description' - 
> although description (e.g. ALU) is also standarized by law, and is 
> same for all EU countries (language independent), it can be easily 
> added below triangle (as text in line below triangle).
>
> Currently, Unicode contains only recycling plastics; so it seems like 
> half-way. If none symbols would exists in Unicode, it would be OK. But 
> if some already exists, why not all recycling symbols defined by law, 
> and only plastic?
>
Difference in regulatory body, perhaps? The first sub-set was 
standardized in the US first ?

Never mind that, just give a clear description of the regulatory 
environment (today), how stable it has been (how long) and what it 
covers - then provide evidence that people are creating *text* with 
these symbols. Traffic signs are also regulated, but generally, they are 
not used in text.

> I would also like to add all symbols from ISO 7000 (IEC 60417), 
> https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:pub:PUB400008:en , as they are created 
> for use in user manuals, and all user interface (physical as e.g. 
> buttons, controls, or display), etc.. If you check your's car manual, 
> you will find many symbols from this standard in it :) But this is 
> another story.
>
Again, you will need to demonstrate that they are used in a way that 
isn't the same as just putting an image into running text.

And some UI symbols have been encoded, but mainly because they are so 
widely used  and not limited to user manuals.

Remember: evidence for use in text - preferably widely used.

Pick any subset that you can get good evidence for, and if it's a 
somewhat logical subset, ask for that. If you try to go for all, you'll 
never get there.

A./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20250420/2d2c3bdc/attachment.htm>