From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2008 - 05:33:05 CST
-On [20081227 18:46], Doug Ewell (email@example.com) wrote:
>People can state today that the encoding of emoji will not set a
>precedent, but five years from now, who knows?
The problem I see is that with all the other encoded glyphs we have encoded
existing languages with a reasonable history behind them. A history that
shook out the dysfunctional stuff and got the rest of it in place and it was
something that people in general agreed upon.
What you have here with this emoji proposal is a vendor proposal of what
they *THINK* is what the users want. It has *nothing* to do with the users
whatsoever. I think we all agree that language is a means to facilitate its
users to communicate. And over the years that language evolves until it
reaches a sort of stable state (it can never be 100% stable). But if the
users are in no way involved in this process (of shake down and selecting)
then, pray tell, what is the effective worth of such a proposal?
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B The Wheels of Life, they turn, ..., without me...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST