<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I found <a href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19343-script-adhoc-recs.pdf" class="">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19343-script-adhoc-recs.pdf</a>, discussing the proposal in L2/19-068R2.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are some recommendations there to update the proposal. But apparently that has not been done since, IIUC.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As to some of the comments and recommendations in 19343-script-adhoc-recs.pdf:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">”<i class="">Some Script Ad Hoc members felt these are entities used in a closed system, inappropriate for
interchange as characters, and could be handled as PUA characters</i>”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would not consider (just about) every terminal emulator used in the world as a ”closed system”. I could agree that the Powerline symbols are a bit of a hack. But it is a very neat hack for the purpose. But ”(only) used in a closed system”, no that is definitely not the case.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Several of the symbols are useful (though many are fanciful, looking outside of the proposal itself), but I disagree with the selection noted in the Ad Hoc committee document:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><i class="">U+1FBCB VERSION CONTROL BRANCH SYMBOL</i> OK! Great for those of us that use version control systems. Not sure one needs to include ”version control” in the name of the character. <span style="orphans: 2; text-transform: uppercase; widows: 2;" class="">OCR FORK </span>could work as a replacement, but nah...</div><div class=""><i class="">U+1FBCC COLUMN NUMBER INDICATOR</i> Not great, too English oriented (and ugly…). I’d recommend a right-ish arrow instead.</div><div class=""><i class="">U+1FBCD LINE NUMBER INDICATOR </i> Not great, too English oriented (and ugly…). I’d recommend a down-ish arrow instead.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The triangles and line triangles are better; useful, and not English oriented. But, granted, mostly, though not entirely (separators/terminators), decorative. But as noted in the proposal, there are already encoded variants of these.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But there is no need to duplicate the lock symbol, as noted in the Script Ad Hoc notes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">/Kent K</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">12 okt. 2021 kl. 01:16 skrev Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org" class="">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">As you (Mark) discovered, the name originates from the piece of software which first used these characters, called Powerline. It's a plugin for vim, tmux, bash, i3, and several other environments that adds a fancy status line to the terminal.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The characters have been proposed before, in document L2/19-068R2. The SAH recommended encoding three of them (the branch symbol and the row and column number symbols) but the UTC took no action. I vaguely recall a recommendation (from the SAH?) for the author, Renzhi Li, to contact the "Terminals Working Group" (Doug Ewell, me, and a few other individuals) to work out integrating them into a "round 2" Symbols for Legacy Computing proposal. We were never contacted by the author but we integrated them into a "round 2" proposal anyway, with the suggestion to use the same code points as were recommended by the SAH.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That "round 2" proposal was brought to the UTC but for some reason was never added to the document register. We had an hour-long meeting in which the UTC reviewed it and had several concerns that were not resolved within that hour. The proposal has not progressed further since then.</div><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><br class="">-- Rebecca Bettencourt</div></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><br class=""></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>