Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
> And what you'll run into is the fact that people don't agree that that
> belongs in Unicode.
What those people would be running into is the fact that I would present sufficient plain text usage of such signs, other than those who forwarded “Emoji“ without giving *one single* example of such usage.
> A lot of that is not exactly plain text. …
Many are and that is easily to testify.
Come on, don’t be more catholic than the pope.
> And pictograms aren't a closed set.
Of course not. But again, this is not a convincing case against doing it.
Emoji aren’t closed sets either. I can’t remember any Unicode rule that only “closed sets” are eligible.
This is not the point.
> It's not possible to find a set of
> sport pictograms that will serve well for communication needs of the
> kind in the future. The 2014 Olympics are adding 12 new events. The
> 2020 Olympics is considering 6 new sports, "baseball, karate, roller
> sports, softball, sports climbing, squash, wakeboard and wushu".
And yet there is still football, swimming, running, rowing, basketball, … all very useful.
Would you never consider these just because other sorts are to be expected in the future?
Come on.
>
> The Wingdings and Emoji were both sets that had proven plain text use
> as consistent sets.
No this is not true and you possibly know that.
Regards
Andreas Stötzner.
_____________________________________________________________________
Andreas Stötzner
Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung
Wilhelm-Plesse-Straße 32, 04157 Leipzig
0176-86823396
Received on Wed May 29 2013 - 03:47:02 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 29 2013 - 03:47:05 CDT