From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2010 - 07:54:08 CDT
Van Anderson <vanisaac@boil.afraid.org> wrote:
> Emoticons (as emoji) are exchanged as plain text. The only
> consideration that changed was whether they should be considered as
> markup or not. Eventually, it became clear that they no longer do
> classify as markup, but as plain text. This was not a change inpolicy,
> it was a development in evidence.
I still find it annoying that it only "became clear" that emoji were
plain text when Google and three large Japanese corporations developed a
business need to interchange and index them. The long-standing rules
against encoding novel and idiosyncratic symbols (and even logos, in
early proposals) do indeed appear to have been compromised by a change
in policy.
However, the emoji proposal became far less objectionable (at least to
me) when color and animation ceased to be considered as defining
characteristics of plain-text characters, and when the proposed
"compatibility characters" for corporate logos were removed, so I'm
simply waiting for the churn surrounding emoji to stop before
considering additional symbol proposals. (As recently as a few months
ago, there were still proposals to change character names and reference
glyphs.)
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2010 - 07:57:10 CDT