On 8/26/2016 10:01 AM, John O'Conner wrote:
What I find more interesting is how emoji (a small digital image or
icon) was ever interpreted as encodable text for the Unicode Standard.
If our German newspaper friends have made a mistake in interpreting
emoji as speech, I think the Unicode consortium has made an even
bigger mistake.
That particular horse left the barn over a decade ago, when Japanese
telcom companies started extending Shift-JIS with emoji on various
phones, and then connected those phones to the internet and started
exchanging email with Unicode-based systems. The emoji were *already*
*encoded* text by that point -- not merely some prospective, uncertain
set of entities which *might* be *encodable*.
You might not like that. It certainly is problematical in many regards
and creates some erroneous expectations. But this is far from the first
time that less-than-ideal characters have been encoded as characters in
the Unicode Standard. Exhibit 1: box drawing characters:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2500.pdf
I would contend that encoding wildly popular and extensively used little
pictographs as characters makes a whole lot more sense in the abstract
than encoding box-drawing graphic pieces for completely obsolete screen
technology ever did.
And would people discussing this topic please pick *one* list to discuss
it, and stop cross-posting to two lists?
--Ken
