From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 28 2009 - 15:36:16 CST
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
>> If someone is building apps to support private emoji sets, evidently
>> they must not feel it is such a bad idea, and might indeed treat the
>> first wave of encoding as a precedent.
> Doug, you are confusing encoding emoji _as coded characters_ versus
> representing emoji _using a text-based protocol_. ":)" is not a
> character, it is a character sequence. Using that to represent an
> emoji is comparable to using à to represent a Latin character.
> In each case, only certain applications support the protocol,
> recognizing the given sequence and interpreting it as a single entity.
OK, this is the part of John's post that I was missing: once
transformed, the emoji are no longer stored as characters at all, PUA or
otherwise, but are represented in the iPhone app as images. That's
fine; online chat sites and poker clients have been doing that for
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s Â
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 28 2009 - 15:37:55 CST