Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:18:43 CST

  • Next message: Michael D'Errico: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    > > Nice try, Leo. But the emoji set is completely enumerated,
    > > in cross-tabular full splendor.
    > Completely? Is e-1E3 CRAB in or out, then? Why or why not?

    You're mixing up the decisions about encoding particular
    emoji (or unifying with existing characters, or leaving them
    unencoded) with the argument you were trying to make claiming
    that the set of emoji wasn't sufficiently closed or well-known
    to make pre-allocation possible.

    *This* set of emoji is very well-defined, indeed.

    Whether you think e-1E3 CRAB should or should not actually be
    encoded is an entirely separate matter.

    And if you want my opinion about the matter, then yes, I agree
    with Marc Crispin. The value in encoding the emoji set is basically
    in encoding the entire set (minus the logos ;-) ). I see no
    benefit whatsoever in leaving out e-1E3 CRAB, simply because
    someone thinks the subrange of animal pictographs is somehow
    unworthy of encoding in Unicode.

    > Where's the (at least de facto) guarantee that in a year, or three, or
    > five, ...

    What the heck could a "de facto" guarantee about a future
    event be?

    > there will not be another 618*N characters because vendors will
    > have decided to ...

    [omitting a long list of strawman silly things that are
    unlikely to happen]

    Well, if you want a non-de facto guarantee, I'll give you a
    guarantee that I don't think it will happen, because it isn't
    in the telco business interests to multiply their gaiji sets
    by a factor of "N", particularly if an interoperable Unicode
    solution is available for them that doesn't corrupt their
    current data and lets them interoperate more-or-less seamlessly
    with the rest of the world's Unicode infrastructure.
    > How many columns will be definitely enough to pre-allocate for emoji?

    I'll venture a wild guess: 32 (U+1F300..U+1F4FF).

    Wanna bet?

    > >> Or would using Kikakui encoded in PUA in cell phones make it
    > >> immediately eligible for encoding?
    > >
    > > Here you go:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Contact them and get started on your business case for adding
    > > Kikakui to their phones.
    > I am just asking if it would make it eligible as far as UTC is concerned.

    If the 3 major Japanese telco's implemented it as SJIS gaiji
    characters, cross-mapped to each other, and a 100 million
    users started sending Kikakui email to the internet, you betcha.
    An unlikely scenario, however, as Kikakui is used "perhaps by less
    than 500 people" in Sierra Leone.

    However, if you look more closely, "Mende" is already in the
    Roadmap for the SMP (16A40..16AFF), despite the fact that it
    is a (relatively) recently constructed script of very, very
    marginal current usage. If you have an interest in seeing its
    encoding speeded up for Unicode, there is a way to do that:


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:21:31 CST