Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 03:16:58 CST

  • Next message: Ruszlan Gaszanov: "RE: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On 2 Jan 2009, at 22:55, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > Compatibility characters may need to be encoded for
    > interoperability, despite failing the normal tests for inclusion as
    > characters. That has been true in some way or other of all
    > characters encoded for compatibility so far. Depending on the nature
    > of the compatibility, the characters *may* obtain a compatibility
    > decomposition, but that is not universally so. The main criteria
    > whether to include some character as compatibility character are
    > based on whether having it encoded is necessary for interoperability
    > with non-Unicode based plain text protocols.

    Seems to me that "compatibility characters" means whatever you want it
    to mean at a given moment.

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 03:21:00 CST