Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Curtis Clark (
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 08:42:53 CST

  • Next message: "RE: Cost of transition to UTF-8 for central census authorities"

    On 2009-01-11 21:34, Leo Broukhis wrote:
    > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Curtis Clark
    > <> wrote:
    >>> Naturally, not in general (I wouldn't claim that any photo or any
    >>> drawing of a dog is a precomposed glyph), but when an attempt is made
    >>> to use a stylized picture in plain text but no evidence is given for
    >>> any semantic difference from the corresponding word spelled out, what
    >>> else is it if not a precomposed glyph for that word?
    >> So is 犬 a precomposed glyph for いぬ?
    > As a unified CJK glyph - no, because it is also present in another
    > independent writing system. If you had chosen a kanji specific to
    > Japanese, then - in absence of homonyms - it can be argued that a
    > kanji character is the precomposed glyph for a word spelled out in
    > kana that uniquely identifies that character.

    So if the stylized picture of a dog were used in more than one writing
    system, it could not be precomposed?

    I'm guessing (I don't know) that there is a somewhat realistic Egyptian
    hieroglyph for dog; would it be a precomposed version of the demotic,
    since it is not used in another system? Or should it be unified with the
    emoji dog?

    My point here is that a lot of these questions have already been
    addressed, and the answers are part of the standard.

    Curtis Clark        
    Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
    University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 08:44:47 CST