Re: Emoji and cell phone character sets...

From: David Starner (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 11:56:37 CST

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

    On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:35 AM, <> wrote:
    > 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:-
    > "e-B45
    > Temporary Notes: bad; NO GOOD, not approved; X in tic tac toe. Tentatively
    > disunified from U+2715"
    > vs
    > "e-B53
    > Temporary Notes: Unified with U+2716"
    > It is hard to see why one is unified and the other is not.

    The fine details of individual character unification isn't really
    relevant to the discussion at hand; the Unicode Emoji lists are a much
    better place. The fact is that the unification rules were applied,
    even if you disagree with some of the details.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 11:59:35 CST