Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
From Peter Edberg:
"Vendor special-purpose character compatibility" or something similarly
non-specific.
Original comment by katmomoi
on 6 Feb 2009 at 8:16
I am OK with this suggestion something similar.
Original comment by katmomoi
on 6 Feb 2009 at 8:17
I think using a name like "Business [and service] logos/symbols" for the
section might cause problems. Unicode
says it does not encode logos, so WG2 folks could object to encoding logos
(even if the glyphs do not look like
logos). I think we should say that these characters are just for round-trip
compatibility with vendor special-
purpose characters. Perhaps we could title the section something like "Vendor
special-purpose character
compatibility" or something similarly non-specific. The subsections could list
the relevant vendor(s) but not say
much more. But Michel S and Ken W might have more informed feedback on this
than I do.
Original comment by pedb...@apple.com
on 6 Feb 2009 at 8:19
We need to settle on a name _quickly_.
Also, yesterday in the ad-hoc we agreed to have a single heading in the chart
and
NamesList for all of these, not headings per vendor.
The current charts have a heading of "Emoji compatibility symbols", which in
the XML
file is the subcategory name.
Original comment by markus.icu
on 6 Feb 2009 at 2:30
The subcategory name is fine: "Emoji compatibility symbols"
I don't think this is urgent since this does not go to WG2 but my suggestion
was to
change the section name for the background data files -- utc.html and full.html
Current: Business logos/symbols
Proposed (pedberg): "Vendor special-purpose character compatibility"
I am OK with Peter's sugegstion.
Original comment by katmomoi
on 7 Feb 2009 at 12:09
Original comment by markus.icu
on 9 Feb 2009 at 8:47
I think this is obsolete; the emojidata.html shows only subcategory names, and
they
are in sync with the Unicode/ISO NamesList file now.
Original comment by markus.icu
on 27 Apr 2010 at 8:46
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
katmomoi
on 6 Feb 2009 at 7:47