Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 11:44:43 CST

  • Next message: Michael D'Errico: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On 1/5/2009 9:16 AM, James Kass wrote:
    > Asmus Freytag wrote,
    >> Telephone text messages are not a closed system, because telecoms
    >> typically provide means to connect to incoming and outgoing email at the
    >> minimum.
    > E-mail can be plain-text or rich-text. There has
    > never been any requirement that all the information
    > contained within a rich-text document will be
    > round-trippable with a plain-text application.
    Right, but these are data streams that use a plain-text protocol, no
    matter how you'd wish you could redefine that.
    >> You can expect these codes to leak onto the web in due course,
    >> if this is not happening already. Whatever the mechanism for that
    >> leakage, what Peter is rightly objecting to is a world where text in
    >> open interchange needlessly contains units that are un-interpretable.
    >> It doesn't matter whether one or two vendors are causing this - as long
    >> as their system isn't *closed*, it's not true private interchange.
    > Suppose for a moment that you and I are sociable
    > Japanese schoolgirls
    That would exhaust my ration for imagination for the next six weeks at
    least. ;-)
    > Text messages sent between cell phone users aren't
    > any concern of Unicoders or search engines. Or
    > anybody else, for that matter.
    That might be your opinion, but I don't think that this is a consensus
    position in the character encoding committees.
    > The private nature of these messages fits very well
    > within the framework of PUA.
    So I am now to use PUA when I write you off-list ;-)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 11:47:40 CST