RE: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Phillips, Addison (
Date: Wed Jan 07 2009 - 22:19:56 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    Note that the IETF operates on "rough consensus". It is difficult to determine rough consensus if only those people who have an actual, original argument say anything and the vast majority nod their heads in assent---privately.

    The problem on this thread is that we are seeing a variety of arguments intended to persuade the general audience's opinion. It is useful to say (sometimes, not always) "+1" when one emphatically agrees with something on a topic where general agreement would be desirable... as a means of showing support.

    Let me add: participating on these threads has mostly been a Sisyphean project. I am borderline ready to add them to my spam list. Composing original replies may be asking too much of most of us :-).


    Addison Phillips
    Globalization Architect -- Lab126

    Internationalization is not a feature.
    It is an architecture.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []
    > On Behalf Of Michael D'Errico
    > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:06 PM
    > To: Unicode Discussion
    > Subject: Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy
    > > This method of indicating approval/disapproval of a given
    > statement is
    > > common in the IETF world, and it works.
    > It is just as annoying there as here. If all you can effectively
    > say is, "yeah, what he said," then you are not adding anything to
    > the discussion. People on this list don't need a cheering section.
    > Mike

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 07 2009 - 22:22:14 CST