From: Christopher Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2009 - 23:27:56 CST
Phillips, Addison wrote:
> In fact, section 2.3 is quite a bit longer than just these two sentences
> and it is important to understand it 'in toto' rather than trying to parse
> it word-by-word. Unicode 6.0 cannot "solve" this problem, because there
> are many ways to become a compatibility character. But all flow from
> the basic definition: a character already encoded except for round-trip
> or other compatibility considerations.
Clearly many of the proposed emoji are not "already encoded" in any way,
shape or form. Rather than stretch the existing definition of
compatibility characters, can we have "interoperability characters"?
Everyone who supports encoding these things claims they are needed for
"interoperability", so calling them that would make sense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 14 2009 - 23:31:09 CST