From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:42:12 CST
John Hudson wrote,
>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?
There is nothing preventing this other mechanism being used
for the current subset.
It is clear that some other mechanism must already be available
in order to handle the logo icons -- those logos have already been
scratched from the proposal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 01:44:53 CST