Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability

From: Andreas Stötzner <>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:10:06 +0100

Am 17.11.2014 um 11:46 schrieb Leonardo Boiko:

> "Sign" is too general

in its generality it is just perfect. The sets of signs in question are most general, covering much more matters, objects and topics than the actual emoticons.

The UCS defines the 1F600 set properly as Emoticons. At least, we should (in English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. Other “symbols” (another misnomer i.m.h.o., but that’s another story) of this kind are termed “Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs”. This is not bad but unprecise as well since many of these signs are not pictographs but ideographs.
Yeah what the heck ;)

We have a long tradition of naming these things rather lousy (“Dingbats”). I am a traditionalist as a matter of fact but if precise terming is tricky I find it better to generalize than to blur.


Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung
Haus des Buches
Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434
04103 Leipzig

Unicode mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 17 2014 - 05:11:17 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 17 2014 - 05:11:18 CST