Re: Missing geometric shapes

2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>

> On 11/12/2012 10:13 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>
>
>> On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>
>> 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>>
>>> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are "garden-variety" type
>>> symbols, and, as I keep pointing out, they absolutely fall within the scope
>>> of geometrical symbols for which there is ample precedent supporting both
>>> plain text usage as well as a standardized encoding.
>>>
>>
>> I oppose your argument of "garden-variety" type symbols because
>> consistancy of this usge with a defined pattern is not demonstated,
>> included in the precise domain where they are found.
>>
>> That does not mean that it's not important to show that there is "at
>> least one" usage for that that is consistent with plain-text.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I meant. There must be at least one precise domain
> where this usage is consistent.
>
>
> No, there's no need for usage to be "consistent". The only requirement is
> that it occurs.
>

This is really an insufficient condition. Which contradicts all current
practices because then you could encode almost every proposals submitted by
any one.

Unicode is not designed to be in the business of what people write, only in
> the business of enumerating the basis elements (written signs) needed for
> that communication.
>
> In some cases, a wide variety of shapes will be understood to represent a
> single written sign, with the alternation being "stylistic". That's the
> case you have with letters and fonts.
>

I never spoke about style as a condition for consistency. "Conssstency" is
just measured in terms of semantics and meaning, not in terms of glyph
shapes which may still offer a wide variety (as long as the semantics
implied by the representation is preserved within the domain of consistant
uses.

> In order to make the case for encoding them, the primary task is to show
> that they can and will be used in contrast.
>

Here we can agree: the contrast however is still demonstratable if the
semantic difference is obvious, at least in the context of application. It
can only be obvious if the contrasted semantics are defined for a reader
that understands it, i.e. there's already been an agreed convention,
standard or norm shared between the writer and the reader because they
share a common interest in it. Consistency is then measurable relatively to
this semantic, and it is not just a pure arbitrary choice of the writer.

> If that can be shown, the details of what each style represents is of
> lesser importance. Those details come into play when the use is not so much
> one that is in contrast with the "generic" usage, but one where a
> convention arbitrarily requires a specific shape - and followers of that
> convention will not recognize a generic substitute as being the particular
> written sign in question.
>

You've just admitted **explicitly** the existence of the "convention".
Can't you see it ?

Conventions are there to avoid inconsistencies between interpretations.
Consitency can be demonstrated by the eixstence of a standard, norm, or
shared rule (this includes all orthographies), as long as its
specifications are open and reusable in other documents and not just
reserved by a single author for his own uses (think: exclusive copyright
claims without open licencing, which would be the case if the convention
was part of the document defining and then using it, where the document has
been published but is not reusable as a reference for this -personal-
convention).

Many symbols are created every day by lots of authors every where in the
world. They do not qualify for encoding, even if they superfiicially seem
to share some similarly looking shapes. The mere existence of these
documents is clearly not enough. Those uses you may find here and there are
still "cool", but it will not "be cool if" they are encoded : the UCS would
be the **1st** standard pair (Unicode and ISO 10646) in which the
convention would be encoded (and then those characters being assigned
properties in Unicode for a very long term, without having to the
possibility to review the convention ans estimate the level of contrasting
uses and consistency of this use across documents from different authors
within at least one domain of application.

"Cool" applications do exist completely outside their prior standardization
in the UCS. The absence of encoding has never been a limitation in the
creativity of authors (even if their use is consistant or not, in fact it
does not matter because there will be authors that will also want to make
inconsistant uses on purpose, violating as many rules as possible, such as
those using "L347" orthographies in English instead of the classical
alphabet with more common «kap1 Tall Lee ZaySHn -end- 0rtau9raff-heek! or
9ram attic-All rooLz»)
Received on Mon Nov 12 2012 - 23:53:28 CST