Re: ["Unicode"] Re: moratorium on repeated discussion of rejected topics

> They wanted more attractive
> ideograms that everybody could read, notably on the social medias where
> they are targetting the mass that don't wnat to learn a new language.

Who they are?

Regards,
mpsuzuki

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> I agree, but this thread just restarted because the very active encoding of
> emojis creates such opporutnity to encode some ideas/words with symbols
> (though these symbols are just symbols and have no grammar and do not
> attempt to represent full text, they are just pictural substitutes for what
> they represent directly).
>
> Emojis are sort of reintroducting of ideograms (but not simplifying them
> with counted strokes or reducing them to be dran with a brish and single
> ink or reducing them to single syllables as in Chinese: emojis are true
> ideograms, just like prehistoric inscriptions, and contain a lot of
> pictural art and offer a wide-open creativity, much more than conventional
> glyphs for letters or syllables).
>
> The other iddiference is that emojis are actively supported by vendors and
> by many users in the world, profiting the fact that some instant messaging
> protocols allowed inserting small bitmap icons. Vendors wanted then to
> support these also on larger ranges of devices using different resolutions
> (or absence of colors, something rare now). For some applications like SMS
> and Twitter, using icons was too costly they wanted a more compact
> representation (that did not require shifting to costly MMS or posting URLs
> hosted on random hosts, with security and privacy problems).
>
> It's natural that emojis came first from Asia (hence their name), where the
> creation of sinograms is still very active, but with glyphs that are
> difficult to interpret by most readers. They wanted more attractive
> ideograms that everybody could read, notably on the social medias where
> they are targetting the mass that don't wnat to learn a new language.
>
> 2015-06-24 17:57 GMT+02:00 Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>:
>
>> Dear Sarasvati:
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a new thread on the topic of using characters to give abstract
>> representation of semantic propositions that can be rendered as sentences
>> in various languages ― so called “localizable sentences”. This idea has
>> been brought up repeatedly over several years now and has gained no
>> traction as having potential for a Unicode encoding proposal. To having
>> this topic continually re-opened is tiresome; it’s a form of spam on this
>> list, degrading the experience for all who come to the list to discuss
>> reasonable proposals or to get help with real usage scenarios. I wonder if
>> you might want to consider putting a moratorium on further discussion of
>> this topic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wed Jun 24 2015 - 11:40:43 CDT