From: Leo Broukhis (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 20:17:05 CST
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Kenneth Whistler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > I'll venture a wild guess: 32 (U+1F300..U+1F4FF).
>> > Wanna bet?
>> The URL above wants them to spread to U+1F2XX and U+1F5XX.
> The stuff in U+1F2XX is part of an already existing block
> of squared ideographic symbols, so that isn't part of
> anything being newly encoded.
> But yeah, we will need to see how the actual allocation
> works out, but given the current proposal's suggestions,
> instead of a wild guess, how about a precise guess:
> 36 U+1F300..U+1F53F
And no supplemental emoji sets ever, right? The only way for that to
happen is for the whole emoji hoopla to fall out of fashion before
long as the technology moves forward.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 20:18:21 CST