Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:06:42 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: […] > Unicode also avoids text that is 'wrong' but still comprehensible. > Unicode should then legalize the use of preformatted superscripts in Latin script. This convention appears to root back in medieval Latin, for

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 22:31:12 -0800 James Kass via Unicode wrote: > It's true that added features can make for a better presentation. > Removing the special features shouldn't alter the message. I think I've encountered the use of italics in novels for sotto voce or asides.

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Christoph Päper wrote, > Stuff like typography or emoji can improve the > effectiveness and efficiency of textual communication > a lot. "Given that rich text equals plain text plus added information, the extra information in rich text can be stripped away to reveal the "pure" text underneath."

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 17/02/18 13:43, Christoph Päper via Unicode wrote: […] > Stuff like typography or emoji can improve the effectiveness and efficiency > of textual communication a lot. (And if used badly or maliciously they can > deter it as well.) > Since poor typography can deteriorate our communication as

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

James Kass: > Asmus Freytag wrote: > >>> Words suffice. We go by what people actually say rather than whatever >>> they might have meant. When we read text, we go by what's written. > >> That is a worthy opinion, but not one that is shared, either in principle >> or in lived practice (...) by

IDC's versus Egyptian format controls (was: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?)

On 2/16/2018 8:00 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: A more portable solution for ideographs is to render an Ideographic Description Sequences (IDS) as approximations to the characters they describe. The Unicode Standard carefully does not prohibit so doing, and a similar scheme is

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:57:57 + Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > 2. Actually, the problem is not just limited to emoji. Many > Ideographic characters (Chinese, Japanese, etc) are adding to the > unicode each years, while at the current rate there are still many > rooms in

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-16 FRI 15:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > > > But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more > > nonsense to what we already have got. > > It's an open-ended set and precedent for encoding them exists. > Generally,

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

A few points 1. To add to what Asmus said, see also http://unicode.org/L2/L2018/18044-encoding-emoji.pdf "Their encoding, surprisingly, has been a boon for language support. The emoji draw on Unicode mechanisms that are used by various languages, but which had been incompletely implemented on

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Asmus Freytag wrote: >> Words suffice. We go by what people actually say rather than whatever >> they might have meant. When we read text, we go by what's written. > > That is a worthy opinion, but not one that is shared, either in principle > or in lived practice (esp. related to digital

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2/15/2018 11:54 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more nonsense to what we already have got. It's an open-ended set and precedent for encoding

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Words suffice.  We go by what people actually say rather than whatever they might have meant.  When we read text, we go by what's written. That is a worthy opinion, but not one that is shared, either in principle or in lived practice (esp. related to digital communication) by vast numbers of

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more > nonsense to what we already have got. It's an open-ended set and precedent for encoding them exists. Generally, input regarding the addition of characters to a repertoire is solicited from the user

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

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

icode.org> 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 21:38:19 + > Shawn Steele via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> w

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: 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 <unicode-boun...@unicode.org> 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 Fe

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.

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?

12:53 PM To: Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@att.net> Cc: Erik Pedersen <erik.peder...@shaw.ca>; Unicode Public <unicode@unicode.org> Subject: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another major

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: 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

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.

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?

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 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 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: 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: 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?

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 12:53 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: 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 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?

>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