From: William_J_G Overington (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 02:33:17 CST
On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Jukka K. Korpela <email@example.com>
> > wrote:
> >> William_J_G Overington wrote:
> >>> Webdings has some very stylish graphic art,
> >> That’s a matter of opinion, ...
> > Thank you for replying.
> > Well, I do not pretend to be an art expert: I just happen to think some of them very stylish myself.
> I wasn’t implying any specific statement on that. I was perhaps too Laconic; I meant that the artistic quality is not a relevant factor in judging the “characterhood“ _or_ the intellectual property rights. For the latter, personal creativity suffices, no matter how others might judge it artistically.
I needed to look up the meaning of Laconic. A useful word added to my vocabulary.
Ah yes, as with my song lyrics and my fonts. The law provides copyright protection due to personal creativity regardless of whether they are perceived to be of artistic merit or otherwise.
> I think the emoji encoding decision was a mistake, with more far-reaching implications than people can anticipate, but I also think that it was a decision to encode symbols (with minimal or no characterhood”) as characters, rather than something relevant to dingbats issues. It was a matter of encoding pictographic or even iconic symbols—dingbats are a different dimension.
What far-reaching implications do you consider might arise from the emoji encoding decision please?
Could you possibly enlarge on your statement "-dingbats are a different dimension." please?
27 January 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 02:35:51 CST