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 whi
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.
> The Unicode Standar
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."
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 w
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 va
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 being
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 Unicode standard to co
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, input regarding the add
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
man
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 commun
On 2/16/2018 12:25 AM, Asmus Freytag
via Unicode wrote:
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
nonsens
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 t
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 p
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 com
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 that
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 type faster than I can ta
> 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 wasting your time travel. Trust me.
>
> B
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,
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
nonsense to what we alread
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
fa
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
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 communication -- the need to convey
>> emotional
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 is no such need. If o
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
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 l
gt; 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 wrote:
>
>> I realize "I'd've" isn
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 cou
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
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 21:38:19 +
Shawn Steele
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.
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.
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 get past the initial
I have also seen them used in a "pre-literate" fashion.
Helping people that were struggling to learn to read get past the initial
difficulties they were having on their way to becoming more literate.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Unicode On Behalf Of James Kass via Unico
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 them
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 Unicode.
Japanese te
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.
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 graphics
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
> text/.
Yes, except th
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 disagree.
>
They were un
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 slow
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.
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 characters being interc
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
>> information content.
>>
>
> I th
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
wr
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 Uni
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 express facial or physical
>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 repr
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 poo, * skin tone
Santa/v
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
49 matches
Mail list logo