Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:11:36 CST

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

    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
    Gulf Islands, BC
    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