Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 02:36:38 CST

  • Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Re: Emoji and cell phone character sets..."

    Peter Constable wrote:

    > From: []
    > 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
    (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