From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 18:46:38 CDT
> > But an approach that abstracts the name, then tries to re-imagine a
> > representation from scratch is, in my view, very much misguided.
>
> Recall that many of the emojis 1) have changed glyphs quite a lot from
> the source glyphs, and 2) are to quite an extent defined from the *source*
> (Japanese) **names** for them rather than the actual glyphs.
O.k., I'll take emoji sources for $400, Alex.
e-510, which is the id of the sources for U+1F381 WRAPPED PRESENT
Docomo #72, purezento
KDDI #144, purezento
Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento
"purezento" in all cases is the Katakana transliteration
of English "present", which is now a borrowed Japanese word
meaning, well, "present" (but just of the kind wrapped up
and given as a gift). The saliant aspect of the glyphs in
all 3 sets is the *bright red ribbon* around the box.
3-535, which is the id of the sources for U+1F4E6 PACKAGE
(Docomo #72, purezento)
KDDI #165, pakkeeji
(Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento)
Only KDDI makes a distinction. The cross-mappings between
vendors map KDDI #165 to the "purezento" on the other
systems.
"pakkeeji" is the Katakana transliteration of English
"package", which is now a borrowed Japanese word
meaning, well, "package" (but of the kind typically wrapped
up in brown paper, tied with a string or various kinds
of fibrous straw, and not given as a gift -- i.e., the
kind of wrapped up item you might carry out of a store).
The connotation here is certainly not primarily
a *postal* parcel, although it could apply to that as well,
of course. The KDDI #165 glyph is distinguished from the
KDDI #144 glyph in being a flatter box and tied up with
a string, instead of a ribbon.
It seems to me both the names and glyphs are just fine as they
are for characters whose encoded purpose is mainly to serve
as mappings for the emoji sets in question. Although I
wouldn't object if somebody made a glyph that flattened the
box for U+1F4E6, so the glyph was a little less confusable
with U+1F381.
But I agree with Asmus that starting from the *Unicode* names
and then inventing fancies about how the characters should
be depicted because of postal parcel rules about use of
packing tape is misguided here.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 18:49:41 CDT