Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Joó Ádám (ceriak@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 27 2008 - 10:24:03 CST

> If users persist to treat as characters something that you think should not be a character

Users do not treat it that way; vendors treat it that way. A huge
difference here.

> the emoji are eminently supportable as characters,
> as is daily proven by millions of working implementations, and they are
> not duplicates or variants that can be unified with other characters.

As James pointed out, anything can be treated as a character if the
needs of a certain environment makes it reasonable to treat it such: I
can assign code points for any kind of media, no matter whether it is
letter or other kind of building block from a writing system; icons;
rich text formatting; pictures; sounds; animations; videos; behaviour
or controlling; any of these and more can be reasonably supportable as
"characters" – a standard, however, must draw the line what it
considers to be a valid interpretation of a character. Even though
that it has a lot of questionable elements (mah-jong?…) already
included in it's repertoire.

> Furthermore,
> said character would be more likely to survive cutting and pasting as
> an emoticon.

Using a phpBB board for example, you, as an administrator can define
the content of the title attribute for any emoticon. Setting it to the
corresponding character sequence for an emoticon will ensure its
survival after a copy-paste both in- and outside of the board.


P.S.: Why don't we have a proper reply-to header in this list? Quite
annoying when I just hit the reply button and my mail gets sent only
to one person.

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