From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 16:31:30 CST
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
>> Opponents reply that, even granting such requirements, the solution
>> is beyond the realm of plain-text.
> And the response to that is, the solution to the general, long-term
> problem of representing arbitrary graphic entities is indeed beyond
> the realm of plain text, but that doesn't change the fact that *this
> set* of graphic entities *is* being interchanged publicly as plain
> text, and the goal of universality and the needs of users of the
> Unicode standard both lead to the conclusion that, while they aren't
> the best examples of plain text, *this set* of graphic entities should
> be encoded in the UCS.
The strong feeling I am getting from this, from everyone in the
pro-emoji camp, uniformly, is that it makes no difference whatsoever
what kind of things are being interchanged publicly as plain text. If
they are being interchanged publicly as plain text, that is sufficient.
So we could see sounds, video clips, program instructions, data,
anything, and as long as they are being interchanged publicly as plain
text, there will be a strong motivation to encode them in the UCS, and
arguments against encoding them will be deemed inappropriate.
And before anyone replies that this is silly, this is preposterous, this
is reductio ad absurdum -- YOU tell me what the difference is. Because
the only argument I have heard in favor of encoding things with zero
symbolic value like FISH CAKE WITH SWIRL DESIGN is that they are being
interchanged in plain text, and that's all that matters.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 16:34:00 CST