Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 11:23:04 CST

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "What is a character? (was RE: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy)"

    Quoting "Michael Everson" <>:

    > 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 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?
    > 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.

    Non-generic symbols which a landmarks/famous places cause great
    potential problems, be they mountains, towers, statues, or maps.

    Non-generic symbols to do with money which are limited to certain
    currencies be they bags of money, money changers, stock exchanges, or
    paper money, are only really acceptable if more generic form is
    possible, which I fear will no be possible in all cases.

    >> 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.

    Being generic is a IMHO one criteria for many types of symbols to be encoded.

    >> 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.
    > Exactly.

    And this being the case this should be done with care and precision.

    John Knightley

    > Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 11:26:21 CST