Re: Facepalm gesture/emoticon proposal

From: Ken Whistler (
Date: Wed Mar 02 2011 - 16:20:59 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Facepalm gesture/emoticon proposal"

    On 3/2/2011 1:29 PM, wrote:
    > From: Leo Broukhis (
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> Unless a /Japanese/ phone provider adds it to the repertoire of symbols.
    >> Leo
    > Actually, since these are compatibility characters, you'd need TWO phone
    > providers to add it to their repertoire of symbols. There are no compatibility
    > issues in a single repertoire.

    Actually, that isn't the case. There are plenty of characters in the
    core emoji
    set which only occurred in a single Japanese phone provider set.

    The compatibility issue is not the cross-mapping between the providers, but
    rather the need for having a Unicode code point to represent each of the
    existing SJIS extension characters for emoji used by *any* of the Japanese
    phone providers.

    > I'd like to see a note in the Emoji code charts
    > that identifies the emoji/emoticons as compatibility characters in order to
    > help preempt these sorts of proposals.

    This has been clear all along in the discussions which led up to the final
    encoding of the core emoji set.

    But labelling a particular set of characters as "compatibility
    characters" in the code
    charts won't actually accomplish anything in terms of preempting proposals
    to extend one group or another of symbols on semantic or functional grounds.
    Each such proposal will end up having to be evaluated on its own terms,
    on the argumentation and examples provided with proposals.

    The point that Asmus was making (among others) is that the Unicode Standard
    (and 10646) don't encode *images* as characters just because somebody can
    demonstrate some conventional meaning associated with them, or because
    claims some concept associated with an image as a "meme". Proposers need
    to do the work to demonstrate the use of them as *symbols in text*.

    That demonstration was easy for the core emoji set, because they already
    as encoded characters in SJIS extensions to character sets already
    as text on devices. That demonstration was independent of anybody's a priori
    determination of whether any particular pictographic symbol in that set
    have been used as an encoded character. They *were* used as encoded
    just like the original happy face from Code Page 437, lo these many
    years ago,
    and the Unicode Standard had to encode them and get on with it.

    Proponents of a "facepalm symbol" would just need to get to work to: a.
    the existence of a conventional pictographic symbol of some sort for it,
    as a *symbol in text*, and b. demonstrate an implementation need for
    it as a character in the Unicode Standard. The same kind of work that
    proposal writers do for other kinds of symbols and/or scripts proposed
    for encoding.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2011 - 16:23:34 CST