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

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 23:05:31 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: India seeks Rupee status symbol"

    From: [] On Behalf Of Michael Everson

    >> Erm... I think you are in agreement on that point, which is where
    >> this thread started: the name in the proposal is RABBIT, not ZODIAC
    >> RABBIT.
    > I did not and do not propose to name it ZODIAC RABBIT.

    I didn't say that *you* proposed that; but it was a proposal that Markus responded to here, which is where this thread began.

    >> No problem with the name. The problem with the annotation is that it
    >> suggests a primary intended usage that is somewhat narrow.
    > Nothing of the kind! Where did you get "primary intended usage" from
    > an annotation. That is one of many possible usages.

    You may understand it that way, but I very much suspect that most readers of the standard would not. Rather, I think they would get the impression that the annotation implies a primary intended usage.

    >> A far less biased annotation would be "used as Japanese emoji",
    >> which leaves people free to infer use to denote a zodiacal sign or
    >> whatever other possible semantics might be used in that context.
    > Good gods, Peter. Why are you making this worse? "Far less biased"? I
    > don't object to the RABBIT being used in Japanese emoji. Nor do I
    > object to an annotation stating such. What "bias" is there in
    > recognizing that the 12 zodiac animals are in this set? (Actually more
    > than 12 are there.)

    The bias I refer to is the one that I think readers of the standard would perceive (whether the authors intended it or not) from a single annotation "used in Chinese astrology".

    >>> Why not annotate the FIRE ENGINE as
    >>> * fire station
    >>> then?
    >> What's the benefit to restricting it in that way?
    > Restriction? To me that just means "can also be used to indicate fire
    > station as well as (obviously) fire engine".

    Again, I think we need to be careful with how such terse annotations will be perceived and interpreted. In particular, I very much suspect many readers would interpret such an annotation as implying a primary intended usage or semantic.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 23:09:13 CST