Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 14:50:21 CST

  • Next message: John W Kennedy: "Re: Hand characters (was: +1/-1 in e-mail comments (was: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy))"

    Quoting "John H. Jenkins" <>:

    > The key difference between flags and corporate logos lies there.
    > Corporations do have very specific guidelines as to when their logos
    > can be used and do resort to legal means to enforce those
    > guidelines. Countries (et al.) are generally not so stringent.
    > Having said that, I agree that including some flags as flags is
    > going to create problems in the future. People with only a passing
    > acquaintance with Unicode will raise the question of why only these
    > ten and not the others, and Unicode will very likely have to deal
    > with proposals to add other flags. And there are the political
    > ramifications. It would be prudent IMHO to change the names.

    Change the name to something other than flags does not change the the
    fact that if these 10 are encoded, it then only requires is to show
    other flags are being used as plain text, or to cause them to be used
    as plain text, something well within the resources of many countries.

    > (Apropos of nothing, I should point out that Unicode has symbols for
    > some religions but not all. While IIRC we *have* received
    > complaints from people that the symbol for their religion hasn't
    > been drawn correctly, we have yet to entertain a proposal to extend
    > the set.)

    The discussion of these, say for example ><> last year, centered
    around whether or not they are used as plain text. There is certainly
    not a moratorium on extending religious symbols.

    John Knightley

    > =====
    > John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 15:04:28 CST