From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 23:12:05 EST
On 12/15/03 12:10, Michael Everson wrote:
> I am not certain that the existing code position is satisfactory for
> non-CJK use. That is, Tibetan, Norse, Native American, Scouting use,
> and so on. Those NEVER show Han brush-stroke shapes. I would like to
> see some discussion about whether the properties those characters have
> are suitable for use in other contexts.
That may be true, but...
> The tilted Nazi swastika is a DIFFERENT character again.
It is precisely the tilted Nazi swastika, not "something that looks
kinda like it, but is used by other people for other reasons," nothing
else, the tilted Nazi swastika, 3:1 thickness/length ratio of the arms
(or however you choose to measure it), exactly that, which I find myself
thinking should be encoded, evil as it was. That there are good and
proper reasons to encode *a* swastika (or several) is probably not hard
to show. But I wonder about *the* swastika.
~mark
P.S. I'm not trying to champion the inclusion of The swastika; certainly
nobody should expect me to propose it. I mention this because the
discussions here have been conflating The swastika with A swastika, and
answers to one don't necessarily answer the other.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 00:06:37 EST