From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2008 - 01:14:36 CST
On 12/20/2008 8:53 PM, Christopher Fynn wrote:
> e-1DE CHINESE ZODIAC DRAGON
> Wouldn't it be better to first encode a complete set of symbols for
> the complete Oriental Zodiac (rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake,
> horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog, pig) - a set of symbols which is
> after all far older than the Emoji set - and then, map any Emoji
> symbols that overlap to those code points?
This is an important reason why so many people are so uncomfortable with
having the emoji be the first large extension of general purpose
symbols. In this and far to many other cases, the symbols in the emoji
set are random selections from some larger, better established set.
Your example is perhaps the most clear-cut, because the underlying set
is fixed in size. There are other cases where the emoji set contains
symbols that are particular representations for items for which another
(symbolic) representation is common in other context.
I believe in all those cases, UTC should no encode the emoji without at
least having settled *in principle* how the relationship to the more
"traditional" symbols will be handled (by leaving reserved code
locations, by asjusting names so the traditional name does not get taken
by an emoji-specific character, etc.). This does not mean that I'd
insist that all these other characters are immediately encoded, but that
a preliminary disposition is made, so that if and when they are encoded,
there's no regrets about messed up sequences of symbols or misleading names.
> - Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST