From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 22:48:58 CST
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
>> there will not be another 618*N characters because vendors will have
>> decided to ...
> [omitting a long list of strawman silly things that are unlikely to
> Well, if you want a non-de facto guarantee, I'll give you a guarantee
> that I don't think it will happen, because it isn't in the telco
> business interests to multiply their gaiji sets by a factor of "N",
> particularly if an interoperable Unicode solution is available for
> them that doesn't corrupt their current data and lets them
> interoperate more-or-less seamlessly with the rest of the world's
> Unicode infrastructure.
Go back and look at the survey again. 72% of users who said they were
dissatisfied with their carrier's emoji said they wanted a wider
variety. You don't think the vendors are going to notice that and start
playing leapfrog with each other to provide ever wider repertoires?
-- 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 - 22:51:07 CST