Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Joó Ádám (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 05:19:57 CST

  • Next message: Adam Twardoch: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    > I've thought about this. But since you would want to intermix text
    > and non-text, it makes sense to retain Unicode as a subset and use
    > the same UTF encoding schemes. The problem, though, is that Unicode
    > claims all the code points, so a new standard would have to violate
    > the rules, either by using planes that Unicode will probably never
    > use(*), or by going beyond plane 16 (which is impossible with UTF-16
    > and specifically disallowed for UTF-8 and UTF-32 conformance).

    So you got back to the original problem, and just realized that
    Unicode cannot save the world, and you just can't use one single
    encoding to represent any kind of data, since different data requires
    different binary representation based on its characteristics, at least
    if our goal is efficiency.

    Maybe at some point Unicode just drawn the longbow, and wanted to be
    more than it's supposed to be?

    The real problem with legacy character encoding was on the one hand
    bad design, and on the other hand bad or lack of use (or existence?)
    of appropriate markup.

    Having different encodings for different media is natural, even for
    different subsets of ones elements – you only have to design them


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 05:21:58 CST