Re: Facepalm gesture/emoticon proposal

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Wed Mar 02 2011 - 16:27:35 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Facepalm gesture/emoticon proposal"

    On 3/2/2011 10:49 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Ken Whistler<> wrote:
    >> On 3/2/2011 9:34 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
    >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Doug Ewell<> wrote:
    >>>> OK, so the answer to lohmatii's question is no, he shouldn't expect the
    >>>> so-called "facepalm" and "double facepalm" to be encoded in the Unicode
    >>>> "gesture symbols area" any time soon.
    >>> Unless a /Japanese/ phone provider adds it to the repertoire of symbols.
    >> *double facepalm*
    > On a more serious note, I remember mentioning on this list that the
    > original emoji proposal including Asian zodiac was incomplete as it
    > did not cover the whole set of animals used in cultures adhering to
    > that zodiac, and, for that reason or another, snail, whale and
    > crocodile, among others, are now in Unicode.
    > If an argument can be brought forward that facepalm somehow completes
    > a set, albeit unintentional, of universal gestures already in Unicode,
    > I believe that it should be considered in earnest.

    And that points the problem with attempts such as Doug's to come to a
    definite conclusion by a discussion on this list in a way that seemingly
    pre-empt the activity of the coding committees.

    The crux is that only a well-formulated proposal would have all the
    details, including specific justification, that would allow the case to
    be decided correctly.

    Mind you, it's fine to point out process, precedents, policies and
    criteria to a potential submitter, but anything beyond that is just
    opinion. This list does not have standing in the decision, only the
    character encoding committees do.

    And I think it is crucial that we make sure they retain their ability to
    judge each proposal on its merits, and to allow them to come to
    conclusions that reflect the particular case. The number of actual
    proposals submitted that are entire frivolous is rather small, so
    there's no urgent need to do anything about the process. (The number of
    "random ideas" brandished about on this list is rather higher - should
    we shut down the list?)


    > Leo

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2011 - 16:29:28 CST