From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 02:31:43 CST
-On [20090106 01:37], Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>The "proper solution" envisioned here would *obsolete* the need to
>resort to character-based, non-extensible hacks for transmitting
>pictographic symbols in the way the wireless carriers in Japan now
>are doing -- but it would not solve the *present problem* of
>dealing with the de facto existing characters *as* characters,
>which is what we are up against here.
Given the turnaround time for Unicode and its updates, what makes you so
certain Unicode 6.0 (to name but an arbitrary number) will then solve this?
Since it means *EVERY* mobile phone has to be updated to support this
standard in order to support the Unicode emojo. So it will not solve this
problem immediately but over the next X years after everything would have
been ratified and mobile phones replaced.
So, why is the need so high to have it in Unicode *now* whereas the solution
is at least 1-3 years away, if not longer? Would that time not be better
spent on working on a solution for supporting a more extensive set of emoji
without having to relay on any specific encoding standard?
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 02:34:37 CST