From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 26 2008 - 20:48:15 CST
On 12/26/2008 11:55 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> Asmus wrote:
>> I would nevertheless support the encoding of the conventional
>> sub-set(s) of emoticons, general symbols, etc. while accepting the
>> need to draw a line.
> I would be interested to know where and on what criteria you would
> attempt to draw such a line.
I think that Arle Lommel's catalog goes a long way to provide the
necessary information separate the core from the extensions. As you look
that over and consider other arenas where emoticons are used (online
forums for example), a common subset will emerge. That subset should be
the target for a serious proposal.
As you know from my other postings, I'm not a strong believer in a
character encoding process that consists of plugging variables into a
formula and turning the crank. Yet, I heavily contributed to the list of
criteria that you can find in WG2 documents, because I believed that
they were a useful way to capture what the encoding community had
learned up to that point. Nevertheless, I was always careful to state
that if something satisfies some criteria it would tend to strengthen
the case for encoding, and if it missed the criteria the opposite would
be true. That's because in my view, one of the early and oft-repeated
lessons that the committees had to learn was "there is no black and white".
>> The advantage of the [ASCII] fallbacks is that they are open-ended...
> My favourite is the SMILING TRADITIONALIST ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST emoticon
> which I look forward to seeing encoded in a conventional subset of
> emoticons as a little picture of a chap in a biretta.
I wonder whether you yourself really think that this is part of the core
subset? Ah, you forgot to put the irony mark after that? Thought so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST