<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Somewhere we dropped the list. Adding
back on.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A "user-defined variation selector"
makes no sense. Because Unicode will not reserve code points with
predefined Default_Ignorable property for such a purpose. We've
just had this discussion again and there's pretty strong consensus
on that point.<br>
<br>
Now, if you were to use a PUA character and treat is like a
variation selector, that's up to you (and people who subscribe to
your PUA assignments) but it doesn't behave like a regular VS,
which is ignorable if you don't / can't process it.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Might as well use regular PUA characters.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Which gets you back to the question
whether these are/should be considered substitutable and/or
whether there is significance in the choice, and if so, what it
would be. There's one other question that is typically ask, and
that is whether there's a need for contrasting usage. The latter
seems absent in this case.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">We've learned a painful lesson that
identifying symbols (even borderline pictorial ones) with emoji
was a very, very, very bad idea and even adding variation
selectors did not fix that very, very, very bad idea. But we're
stuck with it and the TCs vow to never, ever, ever, repeat this
mistake.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The question then is whether the
distinction between a symbolic (schematic) representation and a
full pictorial one is similar, and what the relation of the latter
would / should be to emoji.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Those questions don't have obvious
answers, which means, there's a benefit of raising them in a
well-reasoned proposal (but one that should carefully address the
issues I've laid out here). This would give the TCs and WGs a
chance to try to finetune the encoding principles in that area, as
well as rule on the specific case.<br>
</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 8/12/2024 7:40 AM, Leo Broukhis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFmvRsdmhDOTP7SU8Lg1eh4qBk6tR7XCCfJ+NrkuTQrNEjAOEQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Then it looks like a perfect case for a
(user-defined?) variation selector.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Leo</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at
5:59 PM Asmus Freytag via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>There's arguably a distinction between symbols and
pictographs, even if both signify the same concept.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is different from the case two different sets of
pictographs or two different sets of symbolic notation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Although, even in those cases it is useful to consider
the question: can one of them be substituted for the other
with the reader experiencing the choice as stylistic?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>A./<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 8/10/2024 3:48 PM, Leo Broukhis via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">What's the semantic difference between the
two sets? Without it, it's just different fonts.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Leo</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 19, 2024
at 2:00 AM A. Stötzner via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div> Besides the simple typographic set of 12
zodiac characters there is a tradition of
another set, consisting of pictographic symbols
of the 12 zodiac signs, which also play a role
in typography (~ 16th c. onwards) </div>
<div> Has this set been proposed for encoding at
any time in the past? </div>
<div> </div>
<div> greetings, </div>
<div> Andreas Stötzner </div>
<div> </div>
<div> <img style="max-width: 100%;"
src="cid:part1.c0IIdkS1.biMbpfM9@ix.netcom.com" alt="" class=""> </div>
<div> <span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times">__________________________________________________________________</span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> <span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times"><strong>Andreas
Stötzner</strong> </span> <br>
<span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times;font-size:10pt">Gestaltung
· Archivpflege · Fontentwicklung</span> <br>
<span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times;font-size:10pt">Klauflügelweg
21 · 88400 Biberach a.d. Riß</span> <br>
<span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times;font-size:10pt">0176-86823396
· <a href="mailto:as@signographie.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">as@signographie.de</a></span>
</div>
<div> <span
style="font-family:"times new roman",times;font-size:10pt"><a
href="mailto:post@andronfonts.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">post@andronfonts.com</a>
· <a href="https://andronfonts.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Andronfonts.com</a><br>
</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>