Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations

> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:33:12 -0500 > From: Oren Watson via Unicode > > https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ > > You could disallow these characters in filenames, but when filename handling > is charset-agnostic due to the > extended-ascii

Re: End of discussion, please — Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Anshuman Pandey wrote: > I think it’s a good time to end this conversation. Whether ‘nonsense’ or not, > emoji are here and they’re in Unicode. This conversation has itself become > nonsense, d’y’all agree? No. Other than the part about emoji being here and in Unicode. > The amount of time

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-16 10:46, "James Kass" wrote Phake Nick wrote, > By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for > themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use > voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ Not for me, I can still

End of discussion, please — Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi via Unicode > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:26 AM, James Kass via Unicode > wrote: > >> The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be >> 2007 or 2008, but you'd be

+1 (was: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?)

Philippe Verdy wrote: If people don't know how to read and cannot reuse the content and transmit it, they become just consumers and in fact less and less productors or creators of contents. Just look at opinions under videos, most of them are just "thumbs up", "like", "+1", barely counted only,

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:26 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be > 2007 or 2008, but you'd be wasting your time travel. Trust me. But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

If someone were to be smiling and shrugging while giving you the finger, would you be smiling too? Heck, I'd probably be laughing out loud while running for my life! So, poor example. OK. A smiling creep is still a creep. Suppose for a moment that you and I are pals in the same room having a

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Phake Nick wrote, > By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for > themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use > voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ Not for me, I can still type faster than I can talk. Besides, voice recordings are all

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > > > 2018-02-16 04:55, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: > > Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > >> Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another >> major hole in written

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-16 04:55, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another > major hole in written communication -- the need to convey > emotional state and affective attitudes towards the text. There

Origin of Alphasyllabaries (was: Why so much emoji nonsense?)

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:49:57 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > The concept of vowels as distinctive letters came later, even the > letter A was initially a representation of a glottal stop consonnant, > sometimes mute, only written to indicate a word that did not

Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations

The suggested filename has no real importance, it could be garbage, Displaying it exactly has no importance. What is important is to display the MIME type (which is transmitted separately of the filemane, and frequently as well without the filename, a browser trying to infer a suitable filename

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Philippe Verdy wrote, >>> And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy >> >> Um, no. And not even literacy, either. ;-) > > Oh well the 1 to 2 T is a minor English typo (there's 2 T in French for the > similar word family, sorry). > > But I included "IMHO", which means that even

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Oh well the 1 to 2 T is a minor English typo (there's 2 T in French for the similar word family, sorry). But I included "IMHO", which means that even if it's not official, it has been the motivating reason why various members joined the project and try to put an end to the destruction of written

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription

I'd not've thought "I'd've" was proscribed. Who woulda guessed? On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > Depends on your perspective I guess ;) > > -Original Message- > From: Unicode On Behalf Of Richard

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Richard Wordingham wrote, >> Klingon and Ewellic. [winks] > > But wasn't that using a supplementary standard, the ConScript Unicode > Registry? The code points registered with CSUR were used for the interchange. But, to clarify, CSUR is not an official supplement to The Unicode Standard. Of

Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations

A list poster reported this story today: https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ For a view from the co-father of the Internet, see this recent article: Desirable Properties of Internet Identifiers Vinton G. Cerf

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2/15/2018 2:24 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy Um, no. And not even literacy, either. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_promoting_literacy --Ken

RE: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription

Depends on your perspective I guess ;) -Original Message- From: Unicode On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham via Unicode Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:31 PM To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription On Thu, 15 Feb 2018

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:49:05 -0800 James Kass via Unicode wrote: > I've personally exchanged text data with others using the PUA for both > Klingon and Ewellic. [winks] But wasn't that using a supplementary standard, the ConScript Unicode Registry? Richard.

Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations

https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ You could disallow these characters in filenames, but when filename handling is charset-agnostic due to the extended-ascii principle this is impractical. I think a better solution is to specify a visible form of these characters to

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:38:19 + Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > I realize "I'd've" isn't > "right", Where did that proscription come from? Is it perhaps a perversion of the proscription of "I'd of"? Richard.

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-15 22:38 GMT+01:00 Shawn Steele via Unicode : > > I don't find emoji to necessarily be a "post-literate" thing. Just a > different way of communicating. I have also seen them used in a > "pre-literate" fashion. Helping people that were struggling to learn to > read

RE: Why so much emoji nonsense?

For voice we certainly get clues about the speaker's intent from their tone. That tone can change the meaning of the same written word quite a bit. There is no need for video to wildly change the meaning of two different readings of the exact same words. Writers have always taken liberties

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another > major hole in written communication -- the need to convey > emotional state and affective attitudes towards the text. There is no such need. If one can't string words together which 'speak for

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

That's probably not a bug of Unicode but of MacOS/iOS text renderers with some fonts using advanced composition feature. Similar bugs could as well the new advanced features added in Windows or Android to support multicolored emojis, variable fonts, contextual glyph transforms, style variants, or

Unicode of Death 2.0

This article: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/15/iphone-text-bomb-ios-mac-crash-apple/?ncid=mobilenavtrend The single Unicode symbol referred to in the article results from a string of Telugu characters. The article doesn't list or display the characters, so Mac users can visit the above link. A

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

James Kass via Unicode : > Martin J. Dürst > >> The original Japanese cell phone carrier emoji where defined in the >> unassigned area of Shift_JIS, not Unicode. > > Thank you (and another list member) for reminding that it was > originally hacked SJIS rather than proper PUA