From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 08 2009 - 12:29:35 CST
If you look at the provisional representative glyphs in the charts at
http://www.unicode.org/~scherer/emoji4unicode/snapshot/utc.html, you find
that none of them are distinguished by color.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:19, Jukka K. Korpela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> The short answer is that *everyone* benefits from having
>> a standard that promotes interoperability of text interchange
>> globally without data corruption.
> Regarding the addition of characters to Unicode, which is what this is all
> about, "everyone" is actually limited to everyone who uses or intends to use
> such characters or processes data containing them.
> As such, the interoperability argument is a strong one. Yet, is this about
> _text_ interchange, and specially plain text? Emoji symbols look like
> images, even though their origin is in Ascii strings like ":-)". Do they
> constitute an emerging writing system? Maybe. But it looks more like an
> attempt to create a set of images, to be referred to by their identifiers.
> Then it's a natural (but dangerous) idea to treat those identifiers or
> indexers or whatever you call them as comparable to character names or
> numbers. Just like we encode characters in Unicode, arbitrary graphic
> symbols _could_ be encoded, as a closed set or in an open-ended manner.
> If you require no "characterhood" like systematic glyph variation by font
> design, usage as text characters in different media, and reasonably
> well-understood meaning (either as symbols of their own or as constituents
> of strings, "words"), then you are really opening a highway for all the
> world's symbols, past, present, and future, to enter the gates of Unicode
> and require admission. Well, maybe they'll need at least a small army: a
> company that claims that they have actually started using them in "text
> data" interchange.
> I think this whole argument has been so clouded by emoji-hating
>> and by FUD about color and animation and other concerns
>> focussed on *glyphs* rather than text interchange, that
>> it is unlikely that a reasoned assessment of benefits
>> will seem convincing to those who don't want to hear it.
> Color and animation are essential issues, and I find it odd that it has not
> been commented by those that favor the introduction of emoji as characters.
> You could create a system where normal letters are displayed as
> multicolored and dancing, and nobody would object from the character code
> point of view. Such rendering features are coincidential, optional (and
> fairly rare) for any normal character. For emoji, current and future, being
> inherently graphic and iconic, it would be odd to exclude the possibility of
> making distinction between symbols solely on the basis of their colors or
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/%7Ejkorpela/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2009 - 12:32:24 CST