Pd: Odp: RE: What to do if a legacy compatibility character is defective?

[piotrunio-2004@wp.pl]

How is it a “proper explanation,” to claim that 'No evidence of a document that would make a distinction between the corresponding characters in the different code pages was provided.', when the proposal already thoroughly explains the distinction?   How is it a “proper explanation,” to claim that 'The document is making glyph distinctions, while the Unicode standard is based on character identities.' when the proposal already clearly explains how the legacy characters differ in their fundamental identity from their Unicode counterparts?   How is it a “proper explanation,” to make a claim that the issues 'can be solved by using appropriate fonts' when the proposal already makes it clear that they can't?   I don't see any logic in that response.   Dnia 24 października 2025 22:17 Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> napisał(a):  piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl wrote:   The response to this proposal in L2/25-010 is fundamentally logically  incorrect and does not provide any feedback whatsoever.   Here is the Script Encoding Working Group’s response to Piotr’s proposal, in its entirety:   “We received a proposal requesting a disunification of some of the legacy computing box drawing characters. The proposal seeks encoding a character that is one pixel different from U+1CE2B LARGE TYPE PIECE DIAGONAL UPPER RIGHT, and encoding 26 characters of box drawing lines for PETSCII and Apple II whose glyphs differ in thickness from the characters already encoded in the Symbols For Legacy Computing and Box Drawing blocks.   “We deem the differences demonstrated in the proposal to not constitute differences in plain text. No evidence of a document that would make a distinction between the corresponding characters in the different code pages was provided.   “The request appears to come from a misunderstanding of the standard. The document is making glyph distinctions, while the Unicode standard is based on character identities. It is not a goal of the standard to harmonize PETSCII and Apple II code pages. The issues raised in the proposals can be solved by using appropriate fonts and as such no action is recommended to be taken.”   If there is no “feedback,” it is because SEW essentially rejected the proposal on its premise.   In that response, terms like 'differences in plain text', 'glyph  distinctions', 'character identities' or 'appropriate fonts' are  thrown around as buzzwords, completely defying all logic.   Uh, OK.   SEW is the body responsible for evaluating all non-Han encoding proposals. They probably know a thing or two about plain text and glyph distinctions and such.   My take is that Piotr did indeed receive a “proper explanation,” just not the one he wanted.   The assumption that the SEW 'probably know a thing or two about plain text and glyph distinctions and such' is an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm not the kind of type designer that worships authorities. I'm more of an independently thinking type designer, so I need the arguments to be more specific. I would rather get reasonable logical arguments as to why specifically light box drawings are supposedly equivalent to 1÷8 blocks, or why 1÷4 block thickness in C64 is equivalent to 1÷8 blocks in Unicode, etc. not some vague claims that they do 'not constitute differences in plain text'. Otherwise, what's stopping the SEW from claiming that any non-Han proposed character is no different from some random encoded character and rejecting any proposals on their premise?   --  Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20251024/0efdc79b/attachment-0001.htm>