Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 19:14:51 CST

  • Next message: Curtis Clark: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

    > Finally, I want to remind you again, that the decision tree for
    > deciding to encode compatibility characters is different from the
    > decision tree for ordinary characters. For the latter you start with
    > "are they plain text". For the former you start with "are they
    > interchanged". That makes all the difference in the world, and
    > confusing these two cases, as several participants in this discussion
    > continue to do isn't helping anyone. Let alone helping UTC come up
    > with a solid decision.

    In I
    asked for a pointer to a full definition of "compatibility character" in
    the Unicode 5.x text that would cover "a character that is *completely
    unrelated* to any other character in the standard but is encoded due to
    'interoperability needs.'"

    I have not yet seen one, and as I said at the time, that strongly
    implies that the existing definitions are being pulled and stretched on
    an ad-hoc basis to achieve the end goal of encoding this particular set
    of pictures.

    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 19:16:52 CST