Asmus Freytag wrote as follows.
> If leading standardization was such a good thing in communication, why
> don't we see more "dictionaries of words not yet in use"? After all,
> it would be a huge benefit for people coining new terms to have their
> definitions already worked out. Nothing inherent in the technology of
> dictionaries has directly prevented overtures in that direction, but
> it overwhelmingly remains a path not taken.
> One wonders why.
The comparison is not of like with like.
In 1974 I invented a new concept in broadcasting. I coined the word
telesoftware to denote my invention. I was able to use the word
immediately, because the format for introducing a new word into English
was already established. In 1976 I sent a letter to the editor of a
trade magazine using the word. A gentleman who read the letter replied
and that reply was published in a later issue of the magazine.
Eventually, some years later, the word was added into the Oxford English
Dictionary. At first into a volume of the supplement to the first
edition and then, when it was published, in the second edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary.
If someone wants to coin a new word something to do with character
encoding then he or she can do so and just start using it, perhaps in a
thread in this mailing list nd maybe other people will start using the
new word too. Yet if a new emoji or some other symbol is desired to be
introduced then the symbol cannot just be included in plain text. QID
emoji can provide the capability to get something encoded promptly and
used in plain text. I appreciate that there is then a font provision
issue, yet with the way to encode the emoji or symbol available an
attempt can be made to provide font support. Such font support
possibility may well depend upon the platform.
I remember that when emoji were introduced into Unicode Doug Ewell
predicted that the supporting of emoji on platforms would have the
effect of providing support for other characters encoded in plane 1,
when such support might have been much slower if emoji had not been
encoded. Doug was right. Also colour font technology was developed and
implemented and can today be used with any character, not just emoji.
So introducing QID emoji could possibly lead to the introduction of
advances for other things than emoji as well as for emoji.
> Just because you can write something that is a very detailed
specification doesn't mean that it is, or ever should be, a standard.
Yes, but that does not mean that it should necessarily not become a
standard. For communication to take place one needs to start somewhere.
The QID emoji proposal is a start. It has been considered at (at least)
two Unicode Technical Committee meetings and now there is a public
review taking place.
Everyone has an opportunity to contribute comments and ideas to the
public review and maybe progress will be made.
William Overington
Tuesday 12 November 2019
Received on Tue Nov 12 2019 - 15:06:28 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Nov 12 2019 - 15:06:29 CST