RE: Emoji: Public Review December 2008: e-1DE CHINESE ZODIAC DRAGON

From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue Mar 10 2009 - 21:26:24 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: India seeks Rupee status symbol"

    From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson

    >>> It must be understood that once any of these characters are
    >>> encoded, they
    >>> CEASE to be "emoji" symbols,
    >>
    >> No, they don't.
    >
    > Oh yes, they do, and I really hope you take this concept on board if
    > you want success encoding these characters in WG2.
    >
    > Every character in the standard can be used by everyone, regardless of
    > the origin of the characters.

    Michael, that last statement is of course true

    At the same time, users cannot redefine characters to suit their own purposes, and part of the definition of characters is their behavior in implementations. For instance, it would be very unwise of me to decide that I could use U+0628 as a non-joining character. I could do that if I want, but most likely I will be very disappointed to find out that behavior in most software implementations does not follow my assumptions. The same will be true of these characters: the way that they are handled in software implementations is most definitely going to be impacted by the requirements of the scenarios in which they originated -- Japanese telecoms -- and users should not be led to expect anything different.

    Peter



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 10 2009 - 21:29:09 CST