Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 13:26:21 CST

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

    On 1/9/2009 6:45 AM, Adam Twardoch wrote:
    > 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.
    Stated bluntly like this, you would effectively rescind the 10th Unicode
    Design principle.

    Whenever that principle applies to a set, then non-PUA code points are
    in order, even if the characters violate some other design principle or
    the character-glyph model in some ways. That's the whole purpose of
    having #10.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 13:28:20 CST