Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 01:05:24 CST

  • Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Re: Emoji proliferation"

    On 12/01/2009, James Kass <> wrote:

    > Whether these things remain viable in the PUA, get added to a
    > plain-text standard (shudders), or are handled by another standard,
    > they should be kept together as a set because *that* is their identity.
    > The logos are already out and it looks like those flags won't fly.
    > Pragmatic interoperability is already not gonna happen. Some
    > kind of alternative solution seems to be in order.

    *Yes!* If they are neccessary, my preference is would be to have a
    block of emoji characters encoded for interoperability / compatibility
    reasons (probably on plane 14). The whole lot encoded as a group and
    none unified with existing UCS characters.
    These should clearly be labled as "interoperability characters" and
    their use for other purposes discouraged. These character could
    simply be named EMOJIXXX. and representative glyphs avoided.

    This way the the whole set would be there providing true
    interoperability, we avoid having characters that would normally not
    pass muster being encoded in the middle of existing blocks, and it
    matters little if some of these are coloured, animated or contain
    images of flags.

    Simple black and white non animated symbols akin to some of the emoji
    probably deserve encoding - but these should be encoded seperatly as
    symbols - not unified with the emoji interoperability set.

    - C

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 01:07:10 CST