Re: Emoji and cell phone character sets...

Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 04:35:51 CST

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

    Quoting "Asmus Freytag" <>:

    > On 1/8/2009 6:39 PM, Christopher Fynn wrote:
    >> ... there are already cell phones available in Tibet which use a
    >> pre-composed Tibetan character set:
    >> <>.
    > As long as these Tibetan character sets can't actually express
    > something that can't also be expressed in the standard Unicode
    > encoding of Tibetan, there's no issue here. The requirement is to
    > losslessly convert and roundtrip the text, not the code element. In
    > particular, if they are true pre-composed characters it should
    > always be possbile to transcode them using their decomposition in
    > Unicode and then to compose back on re-conversion.
    > The only issue arises, when these conversions aren't unique - as was
    > the case with converting from shaped, visual ordered Arabic to
    > Unicode's implictly ordered and implicitly shaped Arabic. At that
    > point, pressure arose to add compatibility characters for positional
    > presentation forms in order to allow lossless transcoding of legacy
    > data.

    As the proposal stands a number of the emoji are in fact duplicates of
    existing unicode characters - the principle of non duplication has not
    always been applied.

    Take for example:-
    Temporary Notes: bad; NO GOOD, not approved; X in tic tac toe.
    Tentatively disunified from U+2715"


    Temporary Notes: Unified with U+2716"

    It is hard to see why one is unified and the other is not.

    John Knightley

    > A./

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:34:21 CST