![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
From WP:RfD:
Since all instances of this character in the document appear for me (on a Mac) as the Apple logo, it makes sense to me to have rasterized images of each version of the character. Since the character can represent a corporate logo, this raises the question of if a representation of the corresponding Unicode character constitutes fair use. -- IntrigueBlue 09:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I see little hollow boxes for everything except Wingdings and Webdings, where I see glyphs different from those described... AnonMoos 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing it the way IntrigueBlue described it, as all apple logo's. something should be done, but i don't know how. Jordan042 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User%3APsantora 2607:DA80:3:995:C908:70E7:AF64:524A ( talk) 07:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently, all I see on this page is this glyph: Apple over and over again. It would be great if someone could upload the other glyphs in a similar format and insert them into the article so that others can see the correct image. I'll add the Apple logo where appropriate. Paul C/ T + 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wingdings and Webdings are symbol fonts that are not mapped to Unicode system, so there is nothing at the codepoint. You can check it out with BabelMap for example. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 10:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Private Use Areas → Private Use Area – Into singular per WP:TITLE. The subject is not intrinsically plural, it's just that there are more. See also WP:PLURAL. --Relisted. Xoloz ( talk) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) DePiep ( talk) 07:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. Hadal ( talk) 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Private Use Areas →
Private Use Area – Singular is OK. Plural is not based in
WP:TITLE.
DePiep (
talk)
00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
See this discussion: when parsing text (eg. XML) is interesting to reduce complexity replacing tokens or tags by 1-character token, so, generates a simple text with usual characters and non-ambiguous tokens-as-characters. This simple string can be parser by usual regular-expressions instead complex parser.
Summarizing: the "other use" is "as reliable Unicode 1-character-token in parsing context".
Example: XML representation of multilingual text as
<section class="main"><p>Hello, any character as 𩸽.</p><p>Bye!</p></section>
Now, we can reduce tagged representation to "text and token" representation, remembering the sequence of tags (eg. in an array). Let's see replacing XML-tags by "_T1_", "_T2_", etc. tokens, the text will be
_T1__T2_Hello, any character as 𩸽._T3__T4_Bye!_T5__T6
... But to process the tokenized text by a
regular expression the less complex is to reduce tokens to 1-character... To avoid conflict with "real text" exoctic characters (like "𩸽"), we adopt PUA as the best choice, that never conflics.
Supposing the adoption of PUA codes 61528 (decimal) and 61527, that are the UTF-8 characters "" and "". Now we can represent the XML text with the tokenized text and arrays (suppose JSON representation), and process its content by a simple regular expression.
{
"content":"Hello, any character as 𩸽.Bye!",
"open_tags":["section","p","p"],
"attributes":[{"class":"main"},null,null],
"close_tags":["p","p","section"],
}
Krauss ( talk) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U+f8ff. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
As of Unicode 1.0.1, in the now-antiquated system of dividing the Basic Multilingual Plane into "zones", U+D800..U+DFFF were part of the O-zone, not the R-zone (which included the private use range U+E000..U+F8FF): [1]. This was prior to U+D800..U+DFFF becoming the surrogate S-zone. So U+D800..U+DFFF seems to have been reserved space, not private use space. -- HarJIT ( talk) 19:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think I see where the confusion may have arisen, since the Unicode 1.0.0 PUA ended later, at U+FDFF (but also started later, at U+E800): [2] -- HarJIT ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
From WP:RfD:
Since all instances of this character in the document appear for me (on a Mac) as the Apple logo, it makes sense to me to have rasterized images of each version of the character. Since the character can represent a corporate logo, this raises the question of if a representation of the corresponding Unicode character constitutes fair use. -- IntrigueBlue 09:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I see little hollow boxes for everything except Wingdings and Webdings, where I see glyphs different from those described... AnonMoos 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing it the way IntrigueBlue described it, as all apple logo's. something should be done, but i don't know how. Jordan042 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User%3APsantora 2607:DA80:3:995:C908:70E7:AF64:524A ( talk) 07:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently, all I see on this page is this glyph: Apple over and over again. It would be great if someone could upload the other glyphs in a similar format and insert them into the article so that others can see the correct image. I'll add the Apple logo where appropriate. Paul C/ T + 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wingdings and Webdings are symbol fonts that are not mapped to Unicode system, so there is nothing at the codepoint. You can check it out with BabelMap for example. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 10:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Private Use Areas → Private Use Area – Into singular per WP:TITLE. The subject is not intrinsically plural, it's just that there are more. See also WP:PLURAL. --Relisted. Xoloz ( talk) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) DePiep ( talk) 07:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. Hadal ( talk) 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Private Use Areas →
Private Use Area – Singular is OK. Plural is not based in
WP:TITLE.
DePiep (
talk)
00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
See this discussion: when parsing text (eg. XML) is interesting to reduce complexity replacing tokens or tags by 1-character token, so, generates a simple text with usual characters and non-ambiguous tokens-as-characters. This simple string can be parser by usual regular-expressions instead complex parser.
Summarizing: the "other use" is "as reliable Unicode 1-character-token in parsing context".
Example: XML representation of multilingual text as
<section class="main"><p>Hello, any character as 𩸽.</p><p>Bye!</p></section>
Now, we can reduce tagged representation to "text and token" representation, remembering the sequence of tags (eg. in an array). Let's see replacing XML-tags by "_T1_", "_T2_", etc. tokens, the text will be
_T1__T2_Hello, any character as 𩸽._T3__T4_Bye!_T5__T6
... But to process the tokenized text by a
regular expression the less complex is to reduce tokens to 1-character... To avoid conflict with "real text" exoctic characters (like "𩸽"), we adopt PUA as the best choice, that never conflics.
Supposing the adoption of PUA codes 61528 (decimal) and 61527, that are the UTF-8 characters "" and "". Now we can represent the XML text with the tokenized text and arrays (suppose JSON representation), and process its content by a simple regular expression.
{
"content":"Hello, any character as 𩸽.Bye!",
"open_tags":["section","p","p"],
"attributes":[{"class":"main"},null,null],
"close_tags":["p","p","section"],
}
Krauss ( talk) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U+f8ff. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect . Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
As of Unicode 1.0.1, in the now-antiquated system of dividing the Basic Multilingual Plane into "zones", U+D800..U+DFFF were part of the O-zone, not the R-zone (which included the private use range U+E000..U+F8FF): [1]. This was prior to U+D800..U+DFFF becoming the surrogate S-zone. So U+D800..U+DFFF seems to have been reserved space, not private use space. -- HarJIT ( talk) 19:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think I see where the confusion may have arisen, since the Unicode 1.0.0 PUA ended later, at U+FDFF (but also started later, at U+E800): [2] -- HarJIT ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)