<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">That said.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/17/2024 3:26 PM, Freek Dijkstra
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b1a59382-c892-471a-9050-21196b12ee4b@macfreek.nl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Asmus and others,<br>
<br>
Let me answer a few questions, and at the same time pose some more
questions :)<br>
<br>
<i>Asmus Freytag wrote:</i><br>
<blockquote type="cite">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? </blockquote>
Here is an example use as part of an older logo used by the
organisation (VVN) that performed mandatory safety inspections for
vehicles:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Goedkeuringskrul_VVN.jpg"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Goedkeuringskrul_VVN.jpg</a><br>
<br>
<i>Asmus Freytag wrote:</i><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:259fc498-fba3-4d28-903b-e269ff59911f@ix.netcom.com">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. <br>
</blockquote>
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:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/313281/how-to-make-a-krul-unofficial-dutch-symbol-for-ok"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/313281/how-to-make-a-krul-unofficial-dutch-symbol-for-ok</a><br>
<br>
@James Kass, Christoph Päper:<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
That said, the SE Q&A does raise a few more serious questions.<br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
<i>Asmus Freytag wrote:</i>
<blockquote type="cite"> 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. </blockquote>
3. Yes. It can convey "approval" but can also mean "incorrect" in
Sweden according to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_mark#International_differences"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_mark#International_differences</a>.
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_mark"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_mark</a>
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?<br>
<br>
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").<br>
<br>
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.unicode.org/charts/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.unicode.org/charts/</a>,
where should this symbol be placed?<br>
<br>
<br>
With kind regards,<br>
Freek<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>