From: John H. Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2010 - 10:59:46 CDT
On Jun 2, 2010, at 3:51 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
>> Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 are attempts to solve a basic,
>> simply-described problem: provide for a standardized
>> computer representation of plain text written using existing
>> writing systems.
> Well, that might well be the case historically, yet then the emoji were invented and they were encoded. The emoji existed at the time that they were encoded, yet they did not exist at the time that the standards were started. So, if the idea of the portable interpretable object code gathers support, then maybe the defined scope of the standards will become extended.
*If* the idea of a portable, interpretable object code embedded in plain text garners support and actual implementation outside of Unicode itself, then yes, it's conceivable that the UTC might consider it. Emoji were encoded because they were already widely implemented in Japanese cell phones. If the emoji set had been submitted to the UTC as is *without* prior, widespread implementation, it would likely not have been approved.
And in any event, Unicode already included significant collections of dingbat and dingbat-like elements and has from the first. Whatever one may feel about the merits of encoding this particular set, the fact is that there was ample precedent already there. Encoding emoji did not alter the τό τί ἦν εἶναι, the essence, of the standard.
>> That's it. Any attempt to use
>> the two to do something different is not going to fly.
> Well, I appreciate that the use of the phrase "not going to fly" is a metaphor and I could use a creative writing metaphor of it soaring on thermals above olive groves, yet to what exactly are you using the metaphor "not going to fly" to refer please?
I mean that there is no chance at all that the UTC would approve this proposal as matters stand, and that pursuing such a concept through Unicode channels is a waste of everybody's time, yours not excepted. If you seriously want to get such a radical redefinition of "plain text" included in Unicode, you'll need to start elsewhere.
And I don't have time myself to really comment further than I already have.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2010 - 11:02:04 CDT