Whether or not they would get support to be encoded is almost irrelevant as
long as no-one comes forward and makes a formal proposal with solid
background information. Only then can this issue be settled where it
matters: in the UTC.
Discussions on open lists like this, unless accompanied by formal
submissions, are simply impotent blather.
A./
At 04:57 AM 2/16/02 -0500, Patrick Andries wrote:
>Christopher J Fynn wrote:
>
>>
>>Patrick,
>>There are whole scripts for contemporary languages which
>>are as yet unencoded in the Unicode Standard and some punctuation and
>>other chararacters missing from already encoded scripts. IMO attention
>>needs to be paid to making sure all these characters are encoded before
>>we start bothering with Klingon, smileys, & etc.
>I am not really worried about it, it is more of a theoritical discussion :
>why wouldn't emoticons be legitimate ? What would have happened had they
>been used when fonts often meant character sets?
>Would they have been included now because they would have been seen as
>natural characters ?
>>
>>All the "smiley" characters you need could perhaps be encoded by using
>>one of the existing two plus one of the variant selector characters. If
>>you really think they are
>>some sort of important modern day "punctuation" then document it, make a
>>formal proposal and follow it through.
>Certainly not, I agree with you that they are more important things to do.
>
>P. Andries
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 22:40:49 EST