From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 08:44:00 CST
William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
> Even if the door has been opened, I do not understand why the opening
> of the door for encoding anything graphic as characters would be
> considered to be wrong. There are many unused planes of character
> codepoints. I feel that it is better to use some of them if some
> people want to use them. Indeed I have various ideas for encoding
> things as characters that are not just graphic characters, such as my
> idea for encoding localizable sentences.
The UTC and WG2 do have a set of principles and policies for what sort
of things are appropriate to encode in a character encoding and what
sort of things are not. Regardless of whether any of those principles
were compromised by encoding the emoji, the door is NOT wide open for
adding all kinds of encodable "stuff" to Unicode.
The fact that there are 865,000 unassigned code points does NOT change
this. It would not matter if there were 865 million.
This needs to be an FAQ, if it is not already. I've seen several people
besides William express this view; William is merely one of the most
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 08:47:42 CST