Whether or not they would get support to be encoded is almost irrelevant as long as no-one comes forward and makes a formal proposal with solid background information. Only then can this issue be settled where it matters: in the UTC.
Discussions on open lists like this, unless accompanied by formal submissions, are simply impotent blather. A./ At 04:57 AM 2/16/02 -0500, Patrick Andries wrote: >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 > >
