From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Thu Dec 25 2008 - 23:35:07 CST
Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Unicode encodes cantillation marks, Byzantine musical notation, an
> assortment of dingbats, etc. etc. etc. Why should something with plain
> linguistic communicative value, such as emoticons, be considered "not
> plain text" when all the other stuff is? Cantillation is particularly
> a case in point, as cantillation marks are exactly a "higher-level
> protocol" on top of the plain text, giving additional syntactic
> information (not part of spoken language, if I understand correctly)
> as well as musical directions.
Yes, but most of these are are either
1) well established sets with a long history of usage -
In the case of things like cantillation marks, and
musical notation these have clearly defined meaning.
or
2) Dingbats or symbol sets that were part of some
*pre-existing* symbol set standard.
Encoding Emoji appears to potentially open up the UCS to any new symbol set cell phone carriers & manufacturers decide to support on their devices.
- Chris
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST