From: Adam Twardoch (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 08:45:17 CST
Doug Ewell wrote:
> What about the pictures of pigs and cactus and love hotels and patrol
> cars with revolving light? Asmus is right: emoji (as a group) are not
> the same as emoticons. Let's ignore, for the moment, the emoji that
> actually are emoticons, the ones that have traditionally been
> represented by some form of sideways, one-line ASCII art, and talk about
> things like the pigs and cactus.
This reminds me of the old joke:
"Lady, would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?"
"Um... Well... OK, yes."
"Would you sleep with me for $50?"
"What!? Who do you think I am?"
"We already established who you are, now we're bargaining on the price."
In other words, I don't think the question should be "whether" but
"which ones" to encode.
Let's ignore, for the moment, that emoji are actually emoji, and just
treat them as characters that are up for potential encoding. I do think
that a part of them may not be up to the requirements for ISO/Unicode
standardization. The ones that are up the requirements should be
encoded, for others, vendors should use PUA.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. (Hunter S. Thompson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 08:46:51 CST