Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Leo Broukhis (
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 20:08:31 CST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Michael D'Errico <> wrote:
    >> Why limit the emoji alphabet to ASCII, then?
    > Because all of the scripts in planes C & D would be the same, and since
    > the most recognized small subset of Unicode is ASCII, it is a natural
    > choice. I've read on this list that you need over 8,000 Kanji as a bare
    > minimum for communication, so to include all the worlds languages in the
    > subset so that nobody is left out would require at least 14 bits; thus
    > you would only get a maximum of 4 per plane instead of 255. Plus you'd
    > avoid the need for the complex rendering needed for many scripts.

    Suppose, using your mechanism, I send a message (in Japanese) from
    Gmail (with language preferences set to Japanese) that contains a
    "crab" picture that is missing on Japanese phones. What would (and
    what should, in your opinion, and why?) the recipient see?

    >> Instead of
    >> duplicating all the world alphabets in the "emoji" space, why not have
    >> just two characters: EMOJI LEFT QUOTE and EMOJI RIGHT QUOTE (are these
    >> names BiDi-compliant?)
    > Because this creates "emoji mode" and modes are bad. (Sometimes I see
    > people say that state is bad when they really mean to say that modes are
    > bad.)

    No more than any existing quotes create a "quotation mode".


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 20:11:13 CST