Re: Emoji character identity

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:54:48 CST

  • Next message: Karl Pentzlin: "Re: Emoji zodiac signs (e-02B ... e-037): Symbolic and pictorial variants"

    On 1/6/2009 3:47 AM, André Szabolcs Szelp wrote:
    > Dear list members,
    > especially those favouring the encoding of emoji.
    > Please address the inquiry below (already posted earlier, but unduly ignored):
    >> Actually, even in the domain of emoji, how do you
    >> define character identity? How do you know that a
    >> "Chick" is a different character entity of "Hatching
    >> Chick", how do you know they are not mere *glyph
    >> variants* of the character FLEDGELING??
    The thoroughly pragmatic take is that you look at how the telcos map the
    sets and then you provide enough code points to cover the unique
    members. In other words, even if these characters are all glyph variants
    of each other in normal Unicode terms, you would apply
    source-set-separation rules on them to allow the roundtripping of
    distinctions made in the vendor sets.

    Since the whole point of the exercise is to represent these vendor sets
    with compatibility characters, that's in fact the correct procedure to

    In cases where one is very certain, one could provide a compatibility
    decomposition between separately encoded variants, but it's more
    flexible to handle that kind of relation outside the standard with
    mapping tables.

    A very careful determination needs to be made about which characters
    would qualify as *ordinary* characters in Unicode (i.e. have
    well-established identities, are more like other symbols, don't use
    animation/color. etc. etc.). Having these encoded in a section apart
    from the more problematic characters would make it easier to decide for
    later users (not solely tied to telco interoperability) which characters
    to support.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:56:09 CST