Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair

2013-08-07 Thread comex 
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
   (The precise definition of text is generally left to the
   Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.)

 Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on the
 matter. Defining text is a fool's errand, and explicitly excluding
 emoji is both insufficient and pointless.

The quoted paragraph is intended to be explicitly mostly silent on the
matter, only using emoji as an example.  Em⭕️ji is annoying, but so is
z̸̨̜͈̦̹̜͕̥͈̱̟̙̰͍͈̻̠̩̝͈͝a̵̱̳̣̗̳̣͍̭̣̝̲̠͚̤̞͢͠ͅl̨̨̢̙̫̣̖̭̖͍̦̞̠̹͞g̢̛̻͇̜̙̟̗̲͇̬̫͘̕o͔͇̺͎͍̞̦͖̥͔̝̕͢͟ͅ,
ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ, ├box drawing┤, p⚕ct⚽︎graphs, ‏rtl marks, etc.  But 日本語 or a
≤ b are reasonable.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair

2013-08-07 Thread Elliott Hird 
On 8 August 2013 00:29, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
 The quoted paragraph is intended to be explicitly mostly silent on the
 matter, only using emoji as an example.  Em⭕️ji is annoying, but so is
 z̸̨̜͈̦̹̜͕̥͈̱̟̙̰͍͈̻̠̩̝͈͝a̵̱̳̣̗̳̣͍̭̣̝̲̠͚̤̞͢͠ͅl̨̨̢̙̫̣̖̭̖͍̦̞̠̹͞g̢̛̻͇̜̙̟̗̲͇̬̫͘̕o͔͇̺͎͍̞̦͖̥͔̝̕͢͟ͅ,
 ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ, ├box drawing┤, p⚕ct⚽︎graphs, ‏rtl marks, etc.  But 日本語 or a
 ≤ b are reasonable.


I don't see why we should care about this in flair but nowhere else.
It seems completely irrelevant to me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair

2013-08-07 Thread omd 
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 I don't see why we should care about this in flair but nowhere else.
 It seems completely irrelevant to me.

Well... we have CFJs and proposals, which naturally go out of
circulation after a limited amount of time, and names, which aren't
actually regulated and may be rejected if messy.  I guess it's not
that important, and if you find it objectionable I'll remove it, but
it's also only two lines and prevents people from CFJing about whether
such-and-such is a textual glyph. *shrug*