Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 11:59:42 CST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: PUA convention ID tags"

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

    >> ...unless they are unsuited for plain text encoding because of their
    >> very nature.
    > Such as, for example, stateful controls, code-set shifting commands
    > and other strange beasts, that would be difficult, if not impossible
    > to handle as compatibility characters. I can easily conceive of more
    > exotic examples, if that helps.

    I find it intriguing that in the world of plain-text character encoding,
    which has embraced a limited set of stateful controls at least since the
    Baudot/Murray era, the notion of stateful controls is being dismissed
    out of hand, while colored, animated drawings of baby chicks popping out
    of their eggs are considered "compatibility characters."

    (I almost wrote "chirping." Are audio-enabled characters on the

    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 12:01:23 CST