From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 08 2009 - 20:12:42 CST
Michael D'Errico wrote:
> The limitation of Unicode to plain text is actually just a policy.
The existence of Unicode is actually just a policy. There is no innate
reason why Unicode should exist at all. It wasn't something some creator
god did on an 8th day because it felt like expanding into information
science having spent the past week getting its hands dirty.
The "just" in "just a policy" is an unjustified "just".
> The emoji may not be text, but they do communicate an idea.
So does punching someone when an argument in a tavern turns escalates to
a pub-brawl. I propose we encode this first, as it has both greater
history and geographical distribution. How can we not encode it,
considering the importance to the lives of such great communicators as
Christopher Marlowe (albeit, primarily in making that life shorter).
> should be about enabling communication, not just that communication
> which happens to use fonts.
> (Note I'm not saying Unicode should be
> used for all forms of communication,
Why not? What criterion do we use beyond your personal feelings about a
particular form of communication? I do not think that criterion will scale.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2009 - 20:15:34 CST