Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Jan 04 2009 - 00:45:28 CST

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

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

    >> Seems to me that "compatibility characters" means whatever you want
    >> it to mean at a given moment.
    > I simply follow the definition. See, for example the glossary:
    > "/Compatibility Character. /
    > A character that would not have been encoded except for compatibility
    > and round-trip convertibility with other standards"

    This definition also appears in Section 2.3 (p. 23) of TUS 5.0, but the
    *very next sentence* says:

    "They are variants of characters that already have encodings as normal
    (that is, non-compatibility) characters in the Unicode Standard; as
    such, they are more properly referred to as compatibility variants."

    Now what?


    > What is it with you people? Everything apparently must be black or
    > white. Character coding is an exercise in dealing with shades of gray
    > and edge cases.

    At least now when I see a black-and-white statement such as "Unicode
    does not encode idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private-use
    characters, nor does it encode logos or graphics," I know how to
    interpret it.

    I've been a huge and vocal supporter of the Unicode Standard for the
    past 16 years, back before most people had heard of it, and this is by
    far the most disappointed I have ever been in the Standard. This
    decision will come back to haunt Unicode again and again.

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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2009 - 00:47:48 CST