Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy ツ

From: Julian Bradfield (
Date: Sat Dec 27 2008 - 06:06:52 CST

On 2008-12-27, Christopher Fynn <> wrote:
> Will this now open the door to "characters" encoded in other proprietary
> / OEM standards?
> How about encoding the set of ISO 7001 Public Information Symbols?
> Or the set of 50 US DOT Pictograms?

5.1 has encoded mah-jong tiles. That seems to open the door to pretty
much anything (including colour - the rules of mah-jong sometimes
include rules that refer to the colours on the tiles, though of course
the sample glyphs don't show this). Certainly there's nothing special
about mah-jong, so why don't we have Western playing cards
individually encoded, Tarot cards, etc. etc. etc.?

(Seriously, *can* anybody explain why on earth the mah-jong tiles were
encoded? I write and research on mah-jong, and I see no conceivable
benefit in having these codepoints.)

> Some users have persisted in using Klingon, Tengwar etc. using various
> non-standard encodings ~ now that it appears that the definition of a
> character is being extended, is the UTC open to proposals for encoding
> these scripts outside of the PUA?

As I've just said in another post, tengwar (which I believe is in the
pipeline, but has been for many years) are vastly more popular and
useful than very many things in Unicode (including mah-jong tiles).

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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