From: Michael D'Errico (mike-list@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Jan 08 2009 - 23:08:59 CST
>> 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.
This seems like an overreaction.
> The "just" in "just a policy" is an unjustified "just".
There is a portion of Unicode called the private use area (PUA) where
you are free to assign any code point to whatever you want. Absolutely
anything. There is nothing, technically, preventing non-PUA code points
from being assigned to something that isn't plain text. Policy dictates
that only plain text characters are encoded at present.
>> 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).
I take it that you are against encoding the emoji then?
>> Unicode
>> should be about enabling communication, not just that communication
>> which happens to use fonts.
>
> Why?
Because it can.
>> (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.
Video clips and digitized sound files probably would not encode well;
my personal feelings have nothing to do with it.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2009 - 23:11:56 CST