<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
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">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">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">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">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/">https://www.unicode.org/charts/</a>,
where should this symbol be placed?<br>
<br>
<br>
With kind regards,<br>
Freek<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>