Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Leo Broukhis (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 15:03:25 CST

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

    On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Asmus Freytag <> wrote:

    > If something is expressed as a discrete unit in inline text, and preferably
    > has symbolic or conventionalized use, then, to me, it's passed the most
    > important tests that would put it this side of the fence, when it comes to
    > encoding it in a character set.

    To eventual encoding it in a character set, maybe.
    Imagine a nascent writing system that is not used to publish any
    newspaper, magazine or book, is not taught in schools, is not used in
    the academia, includes blocks of glyph variants of several existing
    characters, looks, and there is no agreement that the set of
    characters in current use is exhaustive.
    Wouldn't that classify it as "Known script, but insufficient
    information to do a decent job of rough pre-allocation, and/or
    insufficient to know whether a pre-allocation is warranted", and
    therefore not in the roadmap?

    Or would using Kikakui encoded in PUA in cell phones make it
    immediately eligible for encoding?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 15:05:02 CST