From: Ruszlan Gaszanov (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2009 - 04:53:21 CST
On Monday, January 12, 2009 6:57 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On >Behalf Of André Szabolcs Szelp
>> Isn't the whole interoperability argument, as an argument, void
>> already by the exclusion of corporate logos? (which are clearly
>> disallowed by Unicode policy, but are an integral part of the original
>> emoji set).
>No, it is not. Corporate logos are necessarily excluded for legal / IP >reasons, whether they're in this set or any other potential source. But >that doesn't mean that all the other entities in a source set can't be >accommodated.
As I see it, full 1-to-1 roundtrip conversion can be attained if and only if the full source set is encoded. If any elements of the source set are excluded, interoperability only becomes relative as there will be situations where data loss can occur.
So, if full interoperability is the goal, would not Google and JPN carriers be better of finding a solution based on a higher level protocol rather then trying to push those things into Unicode?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 14 2009 - 04:56:22 CST