From: Leo Broukhis (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 12:03:41 CST
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I could not find a note in any document stating that the proposed set is
>> final and there will never be another proposal to encode more emoji.
> We're not encoding emoji. We're encoding new symbols which currently are
> only exchanged in one particular environment.
Then each *alleged* symbol should be considered separately, with a
separate corpus of evidence of its symbolic use.
Take an abecedary, where the words containing letters not yet learned
or too complex to read are shown as pictures within text. These
pictures are used as text in a particular environment and likely even
constitute a well-defined set not unlike emoji (animals, fruits and
vegetables, toys, buildings, professions...). Nevertheless, it does
not make the set of "abecedary symbols" eligible for encoding, because
there is no attested *symbolic* use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 12:05:11 CST