Re: What are the present criteria...

Am Donnerstag, 18. August 2011 um 19:24 schrieb Asmus Freytag:

AF> ... The document [WG2 N4085] states that [Wingdings] 2093-2096
AF> appear to be in violation of the character glyph model. I
AF> believe that's the section (or one of the sections) in the
AF> document that Karl summarizes here as "policy statements by
AF> UTC or WG2"

Yes.

AF> The German NB introduces the concept of "indicator" of "benefit [to] the user",

That was intended as very short summary to illustrate a concern on a
specific issue in a comment document, not more ...

AF> Second, it's really unsatisfactory if each NB has their own
AF> criteria for when to add characters to the standard

... and especially the intent was not to layout any general criteria
for the German NB or anybody else.
Thus, please do not assign too much weight to a subordinate clause
in a document which in fact aimed at other issues.

AF> What criteria strengthen the case for encoding? ...

Thank you for clarifying this in this discussion.

AF> ... The symbol:
AF> - is typically used as part of computer applications (e.g. CAD symbols)
AF> - has well defined user community / usage
AF> - always occurs together with text or numbers (unit, currency, estimated)
AF> - must be searchable or indexable
AF> - is customarily used in tabular lists as shorthand for characteristics (e.g. check mark, maru etc.)
AF> - is part of a notational system
AF> - has well-defined semantics
AF> - has semantics that lend themselves to computer processing
AF> - completes a class of symbols already in the standard
AF> - is letterlike (i.e. should vary with the surrounding font style)

Do you agree that a considerable part of the Wingdings/Webdings symbol set
does not comply with even a single one of these criteria?

This, in short, was the concern expressed in N4085.

Then, we expressed that even *if* a larger set of "indicators" is applied
(which were presented exemplarily in the short list cited in this discussion),
a considerable part of these symbols fails.
This, and only this, and only in this context, was the purpose of the
"indicator" list.

AF> ... If one agrees with the premise of encoding the Web/Wingding sets
AF> "compatibility sets" ...

(Which we in fact did not agree to when compiling the comments in WG2
 N4085, but after we learned that at least those competitors of Microsoft
 who are engaged in the UTC do not oppose to this view, we also oppose no
 longer.)

- Karl
Received on Thu Aug 18 2011 - 14:34:48 CDT