Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

>From a mail which I had sent to two other Unicode contributors just a few days ago: Frankly I agree that this whole emoji thing is a Pandora box. It should have been restricted to emoticons to express facial or physical gestures which are insufficiently representable by words. When it starts

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-14 12:18 GMT+03:00 David Starner via Unicode : > Even if mistakes were made, they were carved into stone, and going back is > not an option. > Sure. However that doesn't mean Unicode should keep adding more and more emoji nonsense. A billion of cat faces, pile of

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:55 AM Erik Pedersen via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Dear Unicode Digest list members, > > Emoji, in my opinion, are almost entirely outside the scope of the Unicode > project. Unlike text composed of the world’s traditional alphabetic, > syllabic, abugida or

Why so much emoji nonsense?

Dear Unicode Digest list members, Emoji, in my opinion, are almost entirely outside the scope of the Unicode project. Unlike text composed of the world’s traditional alphabetic, syllabic, abugida or CJK characters, emoji convey no utilitarian and unambiguous information content. Let us,

UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

Given that in the US vanity vehicle registrations with arbitrary alphanumeric sequences upto 7 characters are permitted (I am correct I hope?), I wonder who (here?) owns the UNICODE registration? -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा ူ၆ိျိါအူိ၆ါး

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:44:06PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote a message of 6 lines which said: > Given that in the US vanity vehicle registrations with arbitrary > alphanumeric sequences upto 7 characters are permitted (I am correct > I hope?), I wonder

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

Sorry but "UNICODE" does fit within those rules doesn't it? On 14-Feb-2018 21:54, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:44:06PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote a message of 6 lines which said: > Given that in the US vanity

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

You can use ♥⭐➕ in California. Someone has U+1F913 邏 ( https://www.instagram.com/p/BVYtIHensDu/) Andrew On 14 February 2018 at 16:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:44:06PM +0530, > Shriramana Sharma via Unicode

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote a message of 54 lines which said: > Sorry but "UNICODE" does fit within those rules doesn't it? I doubt that the Departement of Motor Vehicles will accept "but it is in category Ll" as a good reason :-)

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 14 Feb 2018, at 16:29, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > > Sorry but "UNICODE" does fit within those rules doesn't it? Yes. Stephane has misunderstood. (Shriramana meant the literal text “UNICODE”, which is indeed composed of letters A-Z and meets the definition

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-14 20:50 GMT+01:00 Ken Whistler via Unicode : > > On 2/14/2018 12:53 AM, Erik Pedersen via Unicode wrote: > >> Unlike text composed of the world’s traditional alphabetic, syllabic, >> abugida or CJK characters, emoji convey no utilitarian and unambiguous >>

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2/14/2018 12:49 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: RCLLTHTWHNLPHBTSWRFRSTNVNTDPPLWRTTXTLKTHS ! [ ... lots to say about the history of writing ... ] And the use (or abuse) of emojis is returning us to the prehistory when people draw animals on walls of caverns: this was a very

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 2/14/2018 10:37 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: On 14-Feb-2018 22:45, "Alastair Houghton" wrote:

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 14 Feb 2018, at 13:25, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > > From a mail which I had sent to two other Unicode contributors just a > few days ago: > > Frankly I agree that this whole emoji thing is a Pandora box. It > should have been restricted to emoticons to

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2/14/2018 12:53 AM, Erik Pedersen via Unicode wrote: Unlike text composed of the world’s traditional alphabetic, syllabic, abugida or CJK characters, emoji convey no utilitarian and unambiguous information content. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the function of emoji in

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 14-Feb-2018 22:45, "Alastair Houghton" wrote: I’d hope that Mark Davis has “UNICODE” on his car. However, I’m not sure how relevant it really is to this mailing list. You're right. My apologies. It *is* somewhat OT to the actual purpose of this list. But I

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Alastair Houghton wrote, > ...but they were definitely within the scope of the > Unicode project as encoding them provides interoperability. That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that the emoji were definitely outside the scope of the Unicode project as encoding them violated

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:16 AM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that the emoji > were definitely outside the scope of the Unicode project as encoding > them violated Unicode's initial encoding principles. > They were

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

David Starner wrote, > They were characters being interchanged as text > in current use. They were in-line graphics being interchanged as though they were text. And they still are. And we still disagree.

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 2/14/2018 8:14 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: Given that in the US vanity vehicle registrations with arbitrary alphanumeric sequences upto 7 characters are permitted (I am correct I hope?), I wonder who (here?) owns the UNICODE registration?

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > David Starner wrote, > > > They were characters being interchanged as text > > in current use. > > They were in-line graphics being interchanged as though they were > text. And they still are. And we still

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:14 PM, David Starner wrote: > They were units of things being interchanged in formats of MIME types > starting with text/ . From the beginning, Unicode has supported all the > cruft that's being interchanged in formats of MIME types starting with >

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2018/02/15 10:49, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Yes, except that Unicode "supported" all manner of things being interchanged by setting aside a range of code points for private use. Which enabled certain cell phone companies to save some bandwidth by assigning various popular in-line

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Martin J. Dürst wrote: > 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 Unicode.