Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Dec 27 2008 - 11:38:38 CST

Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

> 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".

Principles and Procedures states very clearly that there is no black and
white, but it also gives examples of symbols considered not appropriate
for encoding. If there is an "anything goes" policy, the document
should not include such examples. They tend to lead readers to believe
that there are some things that do not go.

>> o{]:¬)
> 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.


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