Mattias Campe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I personally think that the representation of an emoticon should b > descriptive, because it could be that people use a non-emoticon client > (e.g. they find all those emoticons overhead). So instead of (l) (MSN > example) we could use :love: Because I think "I :love: you" is more > comprehensible than "I (l) you" (Hmm, maybe a bad example ;-) ). A > problem that you have then, is that it will be probably all English. We > could use esperanto instead, but I don't think a lot of people know a > lot of esperanto ;-)...
I think your suggestion of meaningful emoticons is a good idea. Perhaps a simple JEP is in order to standardize emoticons accross Jabber clients (if the client even wants to, nothing forcing them to follow it). Also, I think I'll add meaningful emoticons to my new Jabber Client Guidelines http://www.theoretic.com/?Jabber_Client_Guidelines . -- /\ Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA //\\ Email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // \\ (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ) =//====\\= Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com // || \\ "Bringing Ideas Together" || Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org || "The Coolest IM on the Planet" || "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American || Buddhist Political Philosopher." _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
