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 community, of which I am not a member.
My personal feeling is that all of the time, effort, and money spent
by the various corporations in promoting the emoji into Unicode would
have been better directed towards something more worthwhile, such as
the unencoded scripts listed at:
http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/scripts-not-encoded.html
... but nobody asked me.
