Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Fri Dec 26 2008 - 07:55:19 CST

Christopher Fynn <cfynn at gmx dot net> wrote:

> If carriers start using Unicode instead of Shift JIS there are all
> kinds of currently "unused" characters available for them to abuse ~
> or they could come up with several different PUA encodings - and then
> later come up with a proposal to standardise these using non-PUA
> characters with the same argument of "interoperability" found in this
> proposal.

Isn't that exactly what happened with the current unified emoji
repertoire? The three vendors encoded their (different) sets of
pictures in different ranges of the Shift-JIS user-defined area, then
looked to Unicode to unify the three sets in a common range.

I think it should be clear that there is a significant body of
resistance to encoding these images in Unicode, although Asmus and Mark
and Ken (among others) are on board with them and that is probably all
it will take to get them encoded. They are a major compromise to the
basic principles that have guided Unicode since its inception, in terms
of what does and does not belong in a character encoding standard. They
establish a new principle, that a group of 800-pound corporate gorillas
can override the precedent of 15+ years in determining what gets

And I really don't want to hear again that the arguments against
encoding emoji are emotional and hysterical and opinionated, while the
arguments in favor of emoji are based on sound, logical reasoning.
There are facts and opinions on both sides.

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST