From: André Szabolcs Szelp (a.sz.szelp@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 03:28:36 CST
Isn't the whole interoperability argument, as an argument, void
already by the exclusion of corporate logos? (which are clearly
disallowed by Unicode policy, but are an integral part of the original
emoji set).
/Sz
2009/1/12 Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn@gmail.com>:
> On 07/01/2009, vunzndi@vfemail.net <vunzndi@vfemail.net> wrote:
>> Quoting "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2009 4:13 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jan 2009, at 06:37, John Hudson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One might object that this means any emoji character would require
>>>>> four bytes instead of two, but that is also true if Unicode
>>>>> surrogate characters are used, and opposition to encoding emoji
>>>>> within the BMP seems stiffer than opposition to encoding them per
>>>>> se.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I even want them in the SMP. I'm thinking Plane 14, at
>>>> least for the dodgier ones.
>>> Some people have made it clear they prefer plane 15 :-)
>>>
>>
>> Or plane 16:-)
>>
>>> A./
>
> Since these things can flap their wings and fly, residing on the upper
> planes should pose no problem.
>
> - C
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 03:29:56 CST