Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Julian Bradfield (jcb+unicode@inf.ed.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:42:59 CST

  • Next message: Ruszlan Gaszanov: "RE: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On 2009-01-09, Ruszlan Gaszanov <ruszlan@ather.net> wrote:
    > Michael D'Errico wrote:
    >>Video clips and digitized sound files probably would not encode well;
    > Unless we assign a codepoint to every conceivable video frame and audio sample ;) I'm not sure we have quite that much codespace, though.

    I think you're not being ambitious enough...

    With just three code points:
    BINARY NUMBER START
    COMBINING BINARY DIGIT ZERO
    COMBINING BINARY DIGIT ONE
    you could unambigously encode arbitrary numbers efficiently (in a
    theoretician's sense!) in Unicode; a few more code points would give
    you n-dimensional vectors, which suffices for audio and video.
    But why stop there? Another half dozen code points or so, and you
    could encode arbitrary Turing machines or register machines.

    -- 
    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:44:22 CST