Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: James Kass (
Date: Sun Jan 04 2009 - 01:13:32 CST

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

    Doug Ewell wrote,

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

    This glossary definition may be considered an unhelpful

    >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.

    I didn't hear about Unicode until around 1997. I embraced
    it at once. I've been working with computer plain-text
    steadily since around 1984 and took my first programming
    courses around 1975. A proposal to encode animated cartoons
    in plain-text is flabbergasting.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2009 - 01:15:25 CST