RE: Emoji (was: Re: Unicode block for programming related symbols and codepoints?)

Shervin Afshar <shervinafshar at gmail dot com> wrote:

>> Of course not. But that's been a stated condition for labeling
>> something as "compatibility."
>
> It *is* compatibility; go back and read my email where I mentioned
> exactly where it was used.

You mean the one where you said that Gmail has had ROBOT FACE for a long
time?

You mean to say that any time Gmail or someone adds a private-use
character or embeddable graphic for TOILET PAPER or TIRE IRON or BEER
KEG, that Unicode is essentially obliged to add an emoji to maintain
compatibility with it?

Well, perhaps that's how it is now. But that isn't the way Unicode used
to be.

Fuddily-duddily,

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode