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

[piotrunio-2004@wp.pl]

The characters  1FB70—1FB81 1FBB5—1FBB8 1FBBC , as specified in Unicode 13.0—17.0, are defined with 1÷8 blocks. This implies that the blocks span 1÷8 of the width or height of the character cell, which is subject to the geometric alignment relative to the character cell bounding box, and not subject to font variation. From a typographical standpoint, this is equivalent to a 1×8, 8×1, or 8×8 bitmap being stretched to the size of the character cell. However, some of the legacy computing platforms that the characters were intended for use strokes of a different thickness than 1÷8 width or height, subject to font variation, and therefore contradict the Unicode definition of those characters. This makes the characters unusable for representing text from those platforms.   Dnia 24 października 2025 23:42 Erkki Kolehmainen <erkki.kolehmainen at krest.fi> napisał(a):  I, for one, fail to understand why the thickness of a box drawing character (line) would constitute a fundamental distinction.  As far as I understand, such differences
 fall indeed in the category of font variation. In most cases, I trust, the original users didn’t even know the exact values; they just wanted to draw a box. So, please…     Sincerely Erkki I. Kolehmainen       From:  Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org>  On Behalf Of  piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl via Unicode    Sent:  perjantai 24. lokakuuta 2025 23.56    To:  unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>    Subject:  Pd: Odp: RE: What to do if a legacy compatibility character is defective?    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/cc8630fa/attachment.htm>