From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 03:07:33 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of John Hudson
>>> By the way, one of the reasons I have spoken out strongly against
>>> having the 10 flag-icon-based-locale-symbols in the emoji sets
>>> being turned into an excuse for an open-ended scheme for encoding
>>> flags as characters is because I *agree* with John's general
>>> contention about the inappropriateness of using characters to
>>> represent entities that are essentially images, rather than
>>> text symbols.
>> I've the same inclination as Ken here. And this is a clear indicator
>> of the contention I made the other day that it's premature to suggest
>> that UTC is heading off the deep end of encoding arbitrary graphic
>> entities as characters.
> This seems to me merely inconsistent... But members of the
> standards body are objecting that some of the images are more
> 'essentially' images than other images? An animated image of steaming
> turd is less essentially an image than a flag, fluttering or otherwise?
> It is more of a 'text symbol'?
I think you may have mis-read Ken's comment: he didn't say he's against encoding the 10 flags; he said he's against an open-ended flag-encoding scheme (i.e., encoding those in an open block with room to add lots more flags later on).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 03:09:42 CST