Re: PUA convention ID tags (was: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy)

From: David Starner (
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 08:05:03 CST

  • Next message: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Ruszlan Gaszanov <> wrote:
    > I think PUA-convention ID tags are even more necessary then language ID tags, since the information about the specific PUA convention used is much more critical for correct interpretation of the text then language information.

    That's why we have Unicode; so we don't have to use PUA-convention ID
    tags. We encoded the characters, not character that are semantically
    identical to ISO-2022 escapes. To not encode these characters and yet
    decide they are important enough that they need PUA convention ID tags
    is to say that we were wrong in the first decision.

    > Great many users who need to rely on specific PUA conventions for exchanging their text data would benefit from such mechanism

    How many? How many users actually rely on PUA conventions? Especially
    for whom simple font markup is not enough? Even at that, how many are
    going to insert obscure Unicode characters instead of just getting it
    to work for them and their friends? Who's going to support this? I
    don't see many users, nor the chance that what users there are would
    use this and have it be supported.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 08:06:37 CST