From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 13:26:21 CST
On 1/9/2009 6:45 AM, Adam Twardoch wrote:
> Let's ignore, for the moment, that emoji are actually emoji, and just
> treat them as characters that are up for potential encoding. I do think
> that a part of them may not be up to the requirements for ISO/Unicode
> standardization. The ones that are up the requirements should be
> encoded, for others, vendors should use PUA.
>
>
Stated bluntly like this, you would effectively rescind the 10th Unicode
Design principle.
Whenever that principle applies to a set, then non-PUA code points are
in order, even if the characters violate some other design principle or
the character-glyph model in some ways. That's the whole purpose of
having #10.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 13:28:20 CST