Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: James Kass (
Date: Fri Jan 02 2009 - 18:42:51 CST

  • Next message: James Kass: "RE: Emoji: Klingon vs. emoji (was Re: Emoji survey)"

    Peter Constable replied,

    > > As we've discussed here previously, the telephone companies
    > > have apparently already resolved *their* interoperability
    > > issues by mapping from their own user defined mutually
    > > incompatible Shift-JIS encodings into Unicode's PUA consistently.
    > There's an oxymoronic problem here that isn't sustainable in
    > the long run: public interchange using private-use encodings.
    > Either public interchange is not assumed to be possible, or
    > the private-use area is no longer really private. If public
    > interchange *is* happening in text protocols, then the
    > de facto reality is that there are (abstract) characters*
    > involved that are potential candidates for encoding in
    > the Universal Character Set.

    Private Use Area just means user-defined area. There's nothing
    secret or damaging about user-defined characters, whether
    they be suitable potential candidates for standard plain-text,
    or whether they are destined to remain banished in the
    phantom zone for all eternity. There will always be people
    wishing or needing to exchange user-defined material, and
    there's nothing wrong with that. They are using the PUA

    Search engine companies who feel compelled to index such
    user-defined runs of text or symbols are perfectly free
    to do so.

    What does a search engine do when it runs into a Tamil
    web page encoded using non-standard PUA conventions,
    such as TUNE?


    Leo Broukhis responded to Peter Constable's paragraph quoted above,

    > Would it be possible to solve this problem by designating a set of
    > "telecom compatibility characters"
    > without going into the details of their semantics in the canonical
    > character names,
    > will be standardized as "NNN" drawn in a distinctive way, but in
    > practice a multitude of "fantasy" fonts



    Peter Constable wrote,

    > These are getting interchanged publicly between
    > different vendors products. That's not private use.

    Semantics. There is no point to user defined characters if
    they can't be exchanged. There is even at least one well-known
    PUA registry.

    > > How does allowing these things in now preclude other ICT industry
    > > sectors from making their own icon sets and exchanging them via
    > > plain-text protocols as private use characters?
    > Obviously, encoding these would not be done as a
    > tactic to keep others from doing likewise.

    Quite so. Refusing to encode these would be the best
    tactic to keep others from using the PUA to "promote"
    their thingies into regular Unicode.

    > > ... Machiavellian theories ...
    > Still very far fetched.

    If we accept the premise that the committee is really an organism
    feeding on itself, we might consider that any imputed problems
    associated with committees would tend to be self-correcting.
    Which takes us from Machiavelli to Malthus, more or less.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 18:45:32 CST