Christopher J Fynn wrote:
>
>Patrick,
>
>There are whole scripts for contemporary languages which
>are as yet unencoded in the Unicode Standard and some
>punctuation and other chararacters missing from already
>encoded scripts. IMO attention needs to be paid to making
>sure all these characters are encoded before we start
>bothering with Klingon, smileys, & etc.
>
I am not really worried about it, it is more of a theoritical discussion
: why wouldn't emoticons be legitimate ? What would have happened had
they been used when fonts often meant character sets?
Would they have been included now because they would have been seen as
natural characters ?
>
>All the "smiley" characters you need could perhaps be
>encoded by using one of the existing two plus one of the
>variant selector characters. If you really think they are
>some sort of important modern day "punctuation" then
>document it, make a formal proposal and follow it through.
>
Certainly not, I agree with you that they are more important things to do.
P. Andries
