RE: Emoticons (was: Root and fraction (2 new symbols))

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 03:51:28 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Emoticons (was: Root and fraction (2 new symbols))"

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > ambiguous). Actually, the "-icon" part of the name "emoticon" describes
    > this
    > well, but the "emot-" part is more vague.

    The "emot-" part is very suggestive to the way they are the most frequently
    used and seen today.

    > > (much
    > > more than smileys that are the most reduced forms of emoticons
    > > restricted to plain-text using some form of "ASCII Art").
    > I think the real history is the reverse. Emoticons were invented as "ASCII
    > Art", later turned (to some extent) into small images, included into
    > fonts,
    > and even encoded as characters.

    I have not used any term that means a historic precedence. "Restricted" just
    means what it is, without timing assumptions, it does not mean that a
    restriction has been applied, just that smileys were found to be too
    restrictive and not enough suggestive, and emoticons extended them for the
    convenience of many users, and with a lot more possibility for creativity
    (in addition, emoticons can become language neutral and are easily
    understood by more people, when most smileys cannot).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 14 2007 - 03:52:58 CDT