From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:54:07 CST
Adam Twardoch <list dot adam at twardoch dot com> wrote:
> They are multi-colored? So what. The practice of putting red vowel
> marks over black Arabic writing has existed for centuries. They're
> animated? So what, the technology permits it.
Sorry, some people are still rumored to use an antiquated technology
called "printing." When black-and-white printing is considered as
obsolete as black-and-white television, the color problem will be
solved. But I don't see how you get ink on paper to dance around,
unless alcohol is involved.
> But today, I don't see any difference between "--", ":)" and ":P" --
> they are all imperfect ASCII representations of more elaborate signs.
> "--" stands for "—", ":)" stands for "☺" and the proper representation
> of ":P" is not yet encoded.
>
> Emoji are not non-text signs, they are non-verbal signs, just like the
> traditional punctuation signs. I see no reason why they should not be
> encoded.
What about the pictures of pigs and cactus and love hotels and patrol
cars with revolving light? Asmus is right: emoji (as a group) are not
the same as emoticons. Let's ignore, for the moment, the emoji that
actually are emoticons, the ones that have traditionally been
represented by some form of sideways, one-line ASCII art, and talk about
things like the pigs and cactus.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:55:23 CST