From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sat Dec 27 2008 - 01:34:16 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
> One of the most important principles on which the Unicode effort was
> founded was to provide a unified encoding, to finally have one single
> representation for a character or symbol, instead of multiple competing
> character sets, all with different codes for the same item. In providing
> a unified encoding for items that exist (and are widely used) in
> fragmented character sets, Unicode is fulfilling one of its core
> missions. By not arbitrarily denying the needs of its users to have a
> unified representation of this new phenomenon, emoji, Unicode is
> redeeming a key promise to its implementers.
Will this now open the door to "characters" encoded in other proprietary
/ OEM standards?
How about encoding the set of ISO 7001 Public Information Symbols?
Or the set of 50 US DOT Pictograms?
<http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/symbol-signs> (Described in Wikipedia
as "a set of fifty pictograms used to convey information useful to
travelers without using words. Such images are useful in airports, train
stations, hotels, and other public places for foreign tourists, as well
as being easier to identify than strings of text.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT_pictograms>)
These would seem to be meaningful, well defined and established sets and
to have more practical utility than many emoji.
...
> If users persist to treat as characters something that you think should
> not be a character, you have only two choices: extend your definition of
> character, or stop being universal.
Some users have persisted in using Klingon, Tengwar etc. using various
non-standard encodings ~ now that it appears that the definition of a
character is being extended, is the UTC open to proposals for encoding
these scripts outside of the PUA?
If Emoji are encoded, will Kaomoji and Kaoani (see e.g
<http://kaoani.ikilote.net/>) be next?
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST