From: William_J_G Overington (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 15 2009 - 01:35:33 CDT
On Tuesday 14 April 2009, Christopher Fynn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington wrote:
> > My own view is that it would be good to encode such
> mini-markup characters with the condition that they be
> encoded in an otherwise unused plane, such as plane 10 or
> plane 11, where they could be regarded as ignorable by any
> software applications that did not wish to use them. I am
> unaware of any shortage of space within the higher Unicode
> planes and feel that it would be good to provide for new
> Perhaps it would be best to put all the Emoji there as
> well. ;-)
Actually, I think that that would be a good idea. I say that whilst feeling that it is a good idea to encode the emoji, on the basis of "why not?" as some people want them to be encoded and there is all that presently unused space available in the higher planes.
I was, in fact, somewhat surprised that the emoji were not put in a plane of their own, as that would allow for expansion as time goes on.
Maybe plane 10 for the emoji?
I know that code points have already been agreed by the Unicode Technical Committee, yet the whole encoding process is not yet completed, so maybe the code points could be moved if there were to be a consensus that moving them were a good idea.
15 April 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 15 2009 - 10:22:12 CDT