Re: A proportion with no solution?

From: Leo Broukhis (
Date: Sun Feb 17 2008 - 13:41:51 CST

  • Next message: erra srikrishna: "reg: Unicode Conformance"

    On Feb 17, 2008 11:05 AM, Doug Ewell <> wrote:
    > Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote:
    > > U+263A ☺ : U+2639 ☹ = U+263B ☻ : U+???? ?
    > There is no U+xxxx BLACK FROWNING FACE because no such character existed
    > in the legacy character sets that were used to help populate the
    > Miscellaneous Symbols block.

    Thank you. Makes sense for Unicode, but we will never know what guided
    the authors of the legacy character sets, I guess.

    > The current proposal [1] to encode emoji, or Japanese picture characters
    > used in cell phone text messages, includes over three dozen variations
    > on the smiley, such as ANGRY FACE, ANGUISHED FACE, ASTONISHED FACE, and
    > so forth. There are additional symbols for heads, separate from the
    > smileys, including BOYS HEAD and GIRLS HEAD and MAN WITH LONG MOUSTACHE

    I think that's more than I wanted to know. :)

    > However, there don't appear to be any
    > specifically "black" facial images, so the imbalance claimed by Leo will likely continue.

    Oh well.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 17 2008 - 13:44:37 CST