From: Shawn Steele (Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 12:16:16 CST
+1, I can't imagine (personal opinion) that flags can be limited to those that happen to already be in the emoji set. Flags have political connotations and political bodies are going to want their flags encoded, particularly if there's some sort of historical connection or conflict with one of the encoded flags. (And most of the countries represented by these flags have probably interacted with other countries in such a way that those other countries would like equal representation within Unicode.)
- Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: , 06, 2009 4:18
To: unicode Unicode Discussion
Subject: Re: Emoji and Search Engines
On 6 Jan 2009, at 09:07, Peter Constable wrote:
> 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).
Maybe you did, but there's very little chance in my view that these
ten flags and these only will sail through in WG2.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 12:19:12 CST