Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:29:43 -0800
>
> I was responding to a point that Frédéric Grosshans made [1] about
> these symbols being added for compatibility with Japanese telco usage.
> That argument could be used for the original emoji set, but not for new
> emoji; those are supposed to follow the regular criteria.
The compatibility argument can also be applied to major vendors who are
using emoji other than Japanese vendors; you can find a list of 20-30 of
them here[3]. Add to that list, Facebook and Google. If it is commonly in
use, it has a precedence to be proposed for addition to Unicode.
To have an informing, objective conversation, people should first look at
the actual criteria[4] (as well as the criteria for encoding symbols[5])
and see if what they are claiming is actually according to the criteria or
not.
[3]: http://www.emoji-cheat-sheet.com/
[4]: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors
[5]: http://unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html
> If you look at the set of new emoji proposed in L2/15-054 [2], you'll
> see that quite a few of them are justified by their current popularity
> on the Web. ("Selfie are very popular" was kind of striking. I guess at
> least one of my predictions was right.)
> [2] http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15054r-emoji-tranche5.pdf
>
First of all, these are just proposed and not accepted. Secondly, requests
by online communities (either directly to UTC or through corp members)
creates a precedence for UTC to consider the symbol for encoding.
> > For a longer while now, some folks tend to use emoji as means to an
> > end other than what is in the scope of conversation regarding emoji.
> > And that is not acceptable.
> Sorry, I don't understand this.
No worries. I don't blame you. It's just the good ol' circular logic.
↪ Shervin
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Shervin Afshar <shervinafshar_at_gmail.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.
>
>
> ↪ Shervin
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
>
>> Mark Davis [image: ☕]️ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>>
>> >> In what character encoding standard, or extension, does ROBOT FACE
>> >> appear?
>> >
>> > Unicode has never been limited to what is in other character encoding
>> > standard or extensions, "official" or de facto.
>>
>> Of course not. But that's been a stated condition for labeling something
>> as "compatibility."
>>
>> --
>> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
