From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 06:35:22 CST
On 10 Jan 2009, at 09:03, Christopher Fynn wrote:
> 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
>>>> treat them as characters that are up for potential encoding. I do
>>>> that a part of them may not be up to the requirements for ISO/
>>>> 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?
Because a lot of them are, you know, "symbols". I've no objection to
many of them. And as I have said (posted twice) once in the UCS these
won't be "emoji" symbols any more. You can't say that the emoji
smileys aren't generic. They are.
> 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.
That is what we should do. Evaluate them all in the normal fashion.
Just as we did with the North Korean symbols.
> 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.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 06:37:50 CST