From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:11:36 CST
Peter Constable wrote:
>> How about using Unicode tags on PUA runs (like language tags)
>> to specify PUA convention used?
> Sounds like you want to re-invent ISO 2022. No thanks.
Indeed, no thanks.
While proposing alternative methods of using bits of Unicode -- whether
PUA or standard -- to handle the enoji case makes for an interesting
parlour game, why accept that the transmission codes for an open ended
set of inline graphics has anything to do with text encoding and, by
extension, anything to do with Unicode at all.
Peter, much earlier in this discussion, you mentioned that the companies
involved in proposing the emoji subset in some way understood that a
different mechanism would be needed to extend the set for users (and,
ergo, that Unicode was not facing encoding an open set of graphics). So
what prevents this other mechanism being used for the current subset
also? Since it is going to be necessary, and according to you the
companies understand that it will be necessary, why do they need this
contentious stop-gap measure of standardising their existing sets within
Unicode before proceeding to what must be a better solution for all emoji?
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC email@example.com The Lord entered her to become a servant. The Word entered her to keep silence in her womb. The thunder entered her to be quiet. -- St Ephrem the Syrian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:14:27 CST