From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 18:15:56 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> 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.
Well, that's a bit silly, given that everyone indicating support for this set has expressed support for just that: *this set*, with no indication of support for encoding arbitrary non-graphic data. You just think these are all out of scope, and so people supporting them would therefore be inclined to support anything out of scope. But that's just not the case.
> And before anyone replies that this is silly, this is preposterous, this
> is reductio ad absurdum...
Sorry, I already said it's silly.
> -- YOU tell me what the difference is.
Simple: these are graphic entities, and all the things you mentioned are not.
> the only argument I have heard in favor of encoding things with zero
> symbolic value like FISH CAKE WITH SWIRL DESIGN
I don't think I've heard anybody make any arguments in favour of encoding things with zero symbolic value. Everything in the set being proposed has symbolic value to a significant user community.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 18:18:34 CST