From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 03:03:34 CST
Michael Everson wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2009, at 22:48, André Szabolcs Szelp 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.
>>
>> This is something I do fully agree with.
>
> I also agree.
If on grounds of "interoperability" and "source separation" there is
truly a need to encode them *all* (bar the trademarked logos) why not
set aside 600+ characters on plane 14, give them all generic names name
like "EMOJI SYMBOL XXX" and be done with it? That would satisfy the
interoperability need, more or less avoid the whole issue of whether or
not animated / coloured graphics are text, and would be fairly harmless.
OTOH if we are going to go through the process of looking at each of
them individually, just like any other potential symbol characters
proposed for encoding, I also think there is a lot of stuff that would
not normally qualify. Unifying some of these emoji with existing
characters implies that they are to be treated just like any other
proposed characters - in which case I don't think it is fair for anyone
to expect special treatment for this proposal.
BTW - Why are "source separation" rules being applied to a bunch of
graphic symbols? I thought the rules were originally intended for
application in encoding Han / CJKV characters.
In some cases, where proposed characters amount to little more than
glyph variants of each other, wouldn't it be better to achieve source
separation by means of variant selectors rather than having separate
characters for each variant?
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 03:06:31 CST