Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: David Starner (
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 13:49:43 CST

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

    On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Leo Broukhis <> wrote:
    > Ok, let's look from another angle. Does the standard say when a
    > picture of a dog used within a Japanese text stops being a cute
    > fantasy font glyph variant of 犬 and starts being a separate character?

    Yes; it's called fundamental character identity. We don't unify ŝ and
    ʃ; we don't unify Han characters that mean the same thing if they're
    fundamentally different; and b is never ever an acceptable glyph for
    U+0061 (a), no matter what the sound or usage. There is no bright line
    test, of course, but when a reasonable person stops saying that's an
    elaborate 犬 and starts wondering where you're getting the 犬 from, then
    you've probably crossed the line. There are many fonts where there are
    things in the shapes of the alphabet, and they frequently don't have
    anything to do with the name of the item.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 13:51:37 CST