News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cistercian Numerals. Parent comment

Re:Cistercian Numerals by MikeBattaglia on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @01:59AM (#34592115)
Unrelated rant: The Unicode people have missed a lot more than that. There are an enormous amount of, for instance, musical accidentals that are missing, including ones that have been in use for at least a hundred years, such as the half flats or half sharps in e.g. Arabic or Turkish music, which are used by probably hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East. (They do have a symbol called "half sharp" and "half flat", but it isn't the same symbol.)

But at least they have the multiocular O, I guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by kens on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @03:06AM (#34592578)
If there's something missing from Unicode, you can propose it and there's a good chance they will add it to Unicode. Source: I got 7 characters added to Unicode.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by maw on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @08:22AM (#34594696)
Now I'm curious: which ones?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by kens on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @02:05PM (#34600118)
The Bitcoin symbol is the most well known. Also the Group Mark from 1960s mainframes. The mask work symbol, like copyright for IC dies. And four half-stars.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by BeFlatXIII on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:39AM (#34597424)
* * *
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by WorldMaker on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @01:11PM (#34599111)
Tengwar likely has to wait for the JRR Tolkien estate to release it to the public domain (CC0, for instance) or for the copyrights to expire on their own in a century or so.

(Same with Klingon glyphs and others.)

Such uses are probably fair use, but the Unicode consortium seems hesitant to test "probably" versus reality, especially since they would not see the brunt of the consequences but font authors and others might.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cistercian Numerals by BeFlatXIII on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @08:46AM (#34610291)
So I inadvertently picked examples of who copyright terms are absurdly long more so than Unicode committee nonsense.
[ Parent | on HN ]