From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 02:36:38 CST
Peter Constable wrote:
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
> On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> 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.
Yes but some of these "graphic entities" only seem to be distinguished
from each other only by colour or shading ~ and others move. Up till now
the representative glyphs for encoded characters (and all the glyphs in
what most people normally consider text) have only required black and
white without the need for using other colours, shades or fill patterns
to differentiate them.
Prior to this proposal, attributes like colour were always ruled to be
beyond the scope of a plain text character encoding standard. If colour
or shading (or even animation or facial expression) are now accepted as
attributes used to qualify "characters" for separate encoding, whose to
say where this process won't lead next?
>> Because
>> 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.
So now any "graphic entity" (black & white, coloured or animated) with
"symbolic value" to a "significant user community" that may be used
in-line with text in communication might now be considered as a
candidate for encoding?
BTW could you enlighten me as to just what the symbolic value of e-973
"FISH CAKE WITH SWIRL DESIGN" or "DIAMOND SHAPE WITH A DOT INSIDE"
(glossed as "cute pink diamond shaped thing") is?
If the proposed characters have a symbolic or semantic value which then
IMO that should to be set out in the proposal.
I'm concerned about what e.g. the "symbolic value" of e-1A6 MAN WITH
TURBAN to some user communities might be - particularly when I look at
the DoCoMo emoji image. How is this any less objectionable than encoding
a golliwog emoji would be?
- Chris
> Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 02:38:51 CST