Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:04:26 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    I know we are all trying to save a few bits here, and I'm all for
    trimming what you are replying to.
    However, in a sprawling discussion like this it would be nice if you
    were to take a moment to indicate who you are responding to.



    On 1/9/2009 2:30 PM, Michael D'Errico wrote:
    >>> I've thought about this. But since you would want to intermix text
    >>> and non-text, it makes sense to retain Unicode as a subset and use
    >>> the same UTF encoding schemes. The problem, though, is that Unicode
    >>> claims all the code points, so a new standard would have to violate
    >>> the rules, either by using planes that Unicode will probably never
    >>> use(*), or by going beyond plane 16 (which is impossible with UTF-16
    >>> and specifically disallowed for UTF-8 and UTF-32 conformance).
    >> So you got back to the original problem, and just realized that
    >> Unicode cannot save the world, and you just can't use one single
    >> encoding to represent any kind of data, since different data requires
    >> different binary representation based on its characteristics, at least
    >> if our goal is efficiency.
    > No, I didn't realize that. ... Again, I'm not going to hold my breath.
    > Mike

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:05:44 CST