RE: Emoticons

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Oct 15 2007 - 12:21:19 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Use of interum PUA encodings for 85 letters"

    Frank Ellermann
    > P.S. to Philippe, <beg> is no smiley, no ASCII art, and no dingbat.

    What I have described as smileys, and what I think they are, does not
    include your <beg> (if this is an abbreviation, or just a normal word
    between normal square bracket punctuation pairs).

    But <dop> or <NON> could be sort of smilies (that you can read also after
    rotating it upside-down, or as plain words).
    And <-> also is easily read as a candidate smiley, or as a representation of
    a double-ended arrow approximated in ASCII art.

    I perceive smileys as an unusual use of orthographic letters or other
    characters without their normal semantics, but interpreting them as a whole.
    Smileys are unpronounceable (of there are no defined word to pronounce them,
    and spelling them does not give more sense).

    In emoticons, you can't split their representation into separate characters.
    If you try to divide them, this is just a series of colored pixels, possibly
    animated. A single smiley could have many associated emoticons with evident
    associations, the reverse operation (from the emoticon) is not evident (or
    not unique in each culture if the plain text-only representation is a word
    with abnormal punctuations like :LOL: .

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 15 2007 - 12:23:59 CDT