From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Tue Dec 16 11:36:05 2014
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:36:05 -0800
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
Message-ID: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141216/048d65d9/attachment.html>

From doug at ewellic.org  Tue Dec 16 12:24:24 2014
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:24:24 -0700
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
Message-ID: <20141216112424.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.fb77424fa2.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>

Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

> emoji are clearly the current meme fad

Well, good. That's exactly the sort of thing where the Unicode Standard
should be leading the way. I guess.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org



From daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch  Wed Dec 17 10:40:53 2014
From: daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch (=?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?=)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:40:53 +0100
Subject: UAX 29 on empty strings
Message-ID: <3E2DC690AFE940B385EF856858F84D79@erratique.ch>

Hello,

Does UAX 29 have something to say about empty strings ?  

My understanding is that the empty string is the sequence "sot eot" so there's a single boundary position to evaluate the rules on and given the rules {GB,WB,SB}1, we need to report a boundary on that boundary position. 

Does that feel right ? 

Best,

Daniel 



From ritt.ks at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 10:55:11 2014
From: ritt.ks at gmail.com (Konstantin Ritt)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:55:11 +0400
Subject: UAX 29 on empty strings
In-Reply-To: <3E2DC690AFE940B385EF856858F84D79@erratique.ch>
References: <3E2DC690AFE940B385EF856858F84D79@erratique.ch>
Message-ID: <CAGVE+RmAQ0s_15uH5U0An3-YGVGzASAkvcEJZdDHXxjszzEVAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Correct.

Regards,
Konstantin

2014-12-17 20:40 GMT+04:00 Daniel B?nzli <daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Does UAX 29 have something to say about empty strings ?
>
> My understanding is that the empty string is the sequence "sot eot" so
> there's a single boundary position to evaluate the rules on and given the
> rules {GB,WB,SB}1, we need to report a boundary on that boundary position.
>
> Does that feel right ?
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141217/aee03fe7/attachment.html>

From daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch  Wed Dec 17 11:01:32 2014
From: daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch (=?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?=)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:32 +0100
Subject: UAX 29 on empty strings
In-Reply-To: <CAGVE+RmAQ0s_15uH5U0An3-YGVGzASAkvcEJZdDHXxjszzEVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3E2DC690AFE940B385EF856858F84D79@erratique.ch>
 <CAGVE+RmAQ0s_15uH5U0An3-YGVGzASAkvcEJZdDHXxjszzEVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A81BCC285934588A72AA87D5CDC3BC2@erratique.ch>

Le mercredi, 17 d?cembre 2014 ? 17:55, Konstantin Ritt a ?crit :
> Correct.

Thanks !

Daniel




From emuller at adobe.com  Wed Dec 17 12:26:52 2014
From: emuller at adobe.com (Eric Muller)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:26:52 -0800
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?U8OpbWluYWlyZSBkb2N0b3JhbCAiQ2hlbWlucyBkZXMgw6ljcml0dXI=?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZXMiIHwgR3JpcGlj?=
Message-ID: <5491CAEC.9060607@adobe.com>

This seminar may be of interest to those in France.

http://www.gripic.fr/evenement/seminaire-doctoral-chemins-ecritures

Eric.


From mark at macchiato.com  Wed Dec 17 13:34:28 2014
From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:34:28 +0100
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_HBa63B1HG9JD6mo4bxMqnCGVy6=TkyL2AzK8PS6ipUmg@mail.gmail.com>

We just had a new blog posting; we've moved the media list out of tr51, and
the list already had that item on it. See:

http://www.unicode.org/press/emoji.html#media

Separately, I keep a list of how the media refers to the Unicode
consortium: my favorite is "shadowy emoji overlords".

Bonus points to the first person who can find the one that refers to us as
"part of a shameful plot to destroy the institution of marriage"...


Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>  Everybody wants in on the act:
>
> http://mashable.com/2014/12/12/bill-nye-evolution-emoji/
>
> A./
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141217/26e21a26/attachment.html>

From mark at macchiato.com  Wed Dec 17 14:29:45 2014
From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:29:45 +0100
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <7e30243013b8497cb7aa65521fa2b8c8@DFM-TK5MBX15-06.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HBa63B1HG9JD6mo4bxMqnCGVy6=TkyL2AzK8PS6ipUmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e30243013b8497cb7aa65521fa2b8c8@DFM-TK5MBX15-06.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_H=9MfQ3wBZ+xB=iyK-Pmr07UKyAuT-vWp8zQpu3KzvVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Murray Sargent <
murrays at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/28/the-problem-with-emojis


?Bingo, Murray wins the prize!

[image: Inline image 1]?

?Not to open until Christmas...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141217/a93e7dcf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141217/a93e7dcf/attachment.png>

From everson at evertype.com  Wed Dec 17 15:49:48 2014
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:49:48 -0500
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <1BE269FB-D03F-4B7D-B328-B7A1A633F7A1@evertype.com>

Clearly the plural of emoji is emojis.

On 16 Dec 2014, at 12:36, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Everybody wants in on the act:
> 
> http://mashable.com/2014/12/12/bill-nye-evolution-emoji/
> 
> A./
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/


From everson at evertype.com  Wed Dec 17 20:54:52 2014
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:54:52 -0500
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_HBa63B1HG9JD6mo4bxMqnCGVy6=TkyL2AzK8PS6ipUmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HBa63B1HG9JD6mo4bxMqnCGVy6=TkyL2AzK8PS6ipUmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0DE7EEA3-A4AD-413B-A030-DDCEA663A3F1@evertype.com>

On 17 Dec 2014, at 14:34, Mark Davis ?? <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:

> We just had a new blog posting; we've moved the media list out of tr51, and the list already had that item on it. Bonus points to the first person who can find the one that refers to us as "part of a shameful plot to destroy the institution of marriage"?

Surely that is me, who contributed to Irish ballot comments that ?COUPLE? be replaced by what came to be several three couples holding hands. :-)

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/



From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp  Wed Dec 17 23:41:46 2014
From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:41:46 +0900
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <1BE269FB-D03F-4B7D-B328-B7A1A633F7A1@evertype.com>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
 <1BE269FB-D03F-4B7D-B328-B7A1A633F7A1@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <5492691A.1060703@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

On 2014/12/18 06:49, Michael Everson wrote:
> Clearly the plural of emoji is emojis.

Not in Japanese, where there are no plural forms. The question of what 
it is/will be in English will be decided by usage, not by grammar. I'd 
use 'emoji', but then I'm too biased towards Japanese to be relevant to 
make any predictions.

Regards,   Martin.

> On 16 Dec 2014, at 12:36, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Everybody wants in on the act:
>>
>> http://mashable.com/2014/12/12/bill-nye-evolution-emoji/
>>
>> A./
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unicode mailing list
>> Unicode at unicode.org
>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>

From andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 04:31:37 2014
From: andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com (Andrea Giammarchi)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:31:37 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?KFIpLCAoYykgYW5kIOKEog==?=
Message-ID: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello there,
  I wonder if it's by accident that 00AE, 00A9, and 2122 are not listed as
standard variant sensitive chars.

OSX seems to threat them as such, so adding FE0F will force them to be an
image, but I know there are few quirks in this behavior and I wonder if
there should be an exception.

Thanks for any clarification on this.

Best Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/1e43ebc2/attachment.html>

From mark at macchiato.com  Thu Dec 18 05:03:05 2014
From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:03:05 +0100
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> standard variant sensitive


?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can you
elaborate?



Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/5ff57ceb/attachment.html>

From jkorpela at cs.tut.fi  Thu Dec 18 05:06:51 2014
From: jkorpela at cs.tut.fi (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:06:51 +0200
Subject: (R), (c) and =?windows-1252?Q?=99?=
In-Reply-To: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5492B54B.8080801@cs.tut.fi>

2014-12-18, 12:31, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:

>    I wonder if it's by accident that 00AE, 00A9, and 2122 are not listed
> as standard variant sensitive chars.

Why would that be an accident any more than not listing 100,000 other 
characters there? Or to put it more constructively, why should they be 
listed? What glyph variation needs to be expressible in plain text?

> OSX seems to threat them as such, so adding FE0F will force them to be
> an image,

That does not sound correct. Variation selectors should either affect 
the choice of a glyph or be ignored, and their effects should be limited 
to characters designated to be affected by them.

> but I know there are few quirks in this behavior

To me, the behavior as such sounds like a quirk.

Yucca



From andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 05:09:49 2014
From: andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com (Andrea Giammarchi)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:09:49 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here:
http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt

I'd expect to find the following there:

00A9 FE0E; text style;  # COPY RIGHT MARK
00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK


for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji:
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt

Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a
place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text.

Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently
from other emoji ?

Thanks


On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis ?? <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> standard variant sensitive
>
>
> ?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can you
> elaborate?
>
>
>
> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>
> *? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/899538c4/attachment.html>

From mark at macchiato.com  Thu Dec 18 05:25:27 2014
From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:25:27 +0100
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_HiLVVeHVE7Winep7uoqAmb=75w_Ra8X=3vnYhQJG=PEg@mail.gmail.com>

Note that emoji ? present in
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt

It would probably be useful to read through
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/, which is where we are working on
various aspects of emoji, in your case especially

   - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Identification
   - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Presentation_Style

There are charts attached to the TR that can also be reviewed (and
commented on), such as
http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/1.0/text-style.html

If you have feedback on the data (either supporting what is there, or
recommending changes), you can submit your feedback via a link to Feedback
(found at the top, and in the review notes for each of the sections).


We haven't yet made firm recommendations on the variation selectors or the
default emoji style, so what is there is a fairly a raw draft. (but we are
making progress; see https://plus.google.com/+MarkDavis/posts/MLqEc79yN22).

Personally, I think that if a character is in the recommended list for
emoji, then:

   - if the default style is text, we must have variation selectors.
   - if the default style is emoji, then we should have variation selectors
   if it is in common use with a non-emoji presentation (typical for
   characters that have been in Unicode for a long time).



Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here:
> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt
>
> I'd expect to find the following there:
>
> 00A9 FE0E; text style;  # COPY RIGHT MARK
> 00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK
>
>
> for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji:
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt
>
> Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a
> place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text.
>
> Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently
> from other emoji ?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis [image: ?]? <
> mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> standard variant sensitive
>>
>>
>> ?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can you
>> elaborate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>>
>> *? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/fe5ca44b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emoji_u2615.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1890 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/fe5ca44b/attachment.png>

From andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 05:42:04 2014
From: andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com (Andrea Giammarchi)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:42:04 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_HiLVVeHVE7Winep7uoqAmb=75w_Ra8X=3vnYhQJG=PEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HiLVVeHVE7Winep7uoqAmb=75w_Ra8X=3vnYhQJG=PEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADA77mjn46E6DQcCL8Hkf_jhER0DPunbgiB=Un4FLPE5q4RmaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Mark, I know that emoji != present in there but I need these
formatted files for static analysis so I've just copied and pasted from a
source file what I use to perform some validation check.
(as side note, if these are incomplete I have problems ... any more updated
source with same format?)

However, back to the topic, I agree with your last two points and this is
exactly the case:

   - the default style is text ... because
   - these have been in Unicode forever ( even standard ASCII for two of
   them ) so I'd expect, since somehow part of the emoji family, to have them
   compatible with variation selectors

If this will be the common agreement, how long could it take to be
effectively in the tr51 document ?

Thanks again for all links and details

Best Regards



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Mark Davis ?? <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
> Note that emoji ? present in
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt
>
> It would probably be useful to read through
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/, which is where we are working on
> various aspects of emoji, in your case especially
>
>    - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Identification
>    - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Presentation_Style
>
> There are charts attached to the TR that can also be reviewed (and
> commented on), such as
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/1.0/text-style.html
>
> If you have feedback on the data (either supporting what is there, or
> recommending changes), you can submit your feedback via a link to Feedback
> (found at the top, and in the review notes for each of the sections).
>
>
> We haven't yet made firm recommendations on the variation selectors or the
> default emoji style, so what is there is a fairly a raw draft. (but we are
> making progress; see https://plus.google.com/+MarkDavis/posts/MLqEc79yN22
> ).
>
> Personally, I think that if a character is in the recommended list for
> emoji, then:
>
>    - if the default style is text, we must have variation selectors.
>    - if the default style is emoji, then we should have variation
>    selectors if it is in common use with a non-emoji presentation (typical for
>    characters that have been in Unicode for a long time).
>
>
>
> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>
> *? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here:
>> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt
>>
>> I'd expect to find the following there:
>>
>> 00A9 FE0E; text style;  # COPY RIGHT MARK
>> 00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK
>>
>>
>> for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji:
>> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt
>>
>> Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a
>> place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text.
>>
>> Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently
>> from other emoji ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis [image: ?]? <
>> mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> standard variant sensitive
>>>
>>>
>>> ?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can
>>> you elaborate?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>>>
>>> *? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/4a40f3a2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emoji_u2615.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1890 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/4a40f3a2/attachment.png>

From leoboiko at namakajiri.net  Thu Dec 18 05:42:13 2014
From: leoboiko at namakajiri.net (Leonardo Boiko)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:42:13 -0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ6uix6G+R4MK+4cOCEXfdnVWeqQof-T4LrsnU2B5tLv8u7XOQ@mail.gmail.com>

For the record, the emoji selection issue is also affecting the Google
Talk/Hangouts web client, where U+2122 (trademark, ?), U+00AE (registered,
?), U+00A9 (copyright, ?), and U+2194 (left right arrow, ?) seem to be
treated as emoji and displayed in funky blue:

http://namakajiri.net/pics/screenshots/gmail_emouni.png

There are probably more I haven't discovered.



2014-12-18 8:31 GMT-02:00 Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>:
>
> Hello there,
>   I wonder if it's by accident that 00AE, 00A9, and 2122 are not listed as
> standard variant sensitive chars.
>
> OSX seems to threat them as such, so adding FE0F will force them to be an
> image, but I know there are few quirks in this behavior and I wonder if
> there should be an exception.
>
> Thanks for any clarification on this.
>
> Best Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/90778b38/attachment.html>

From jonathan.rosenne at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 06:14:07 2014
From: jonathan.rosenne at gmail.com (Jonathan Rosenne)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:14:07 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?RE:_=28R=29=2C_=28c=29_and_=E2=84=A2?=
In-Reply-To: <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002a01d01abc$20ee8220$62cb8660$@gmail.com>

To pick a nit, it should be COPYRIGHT rather than COPY RIGHT.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jonathan Rosenne

 

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Giammarchi
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:10 PM
To: Mark Davis ??
Cc: Unicode Public
Subject: Re: (R), (c) and ?

 

Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here: http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt

 

I'd expect to find the following there:

 

00A9 FE0E; text style;  # COPY RIGHT MARK
00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK

 

for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji:

http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt

 

Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text.

 

Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently from other emoji ?

 

Thanks

 

 

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis ?? <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:

 

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

standard variant sensitive

 

?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can you elaborate?





 

Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> 

 

? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/fd6c66b0/attachment.html>

From andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 06:28:33 2014
From: andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com (Andrea Giammarchi)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:28:33 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <002a01d01abc$20ee8220$62cb8660$@gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2xs_HGH2kbHzjBQDpxc-b44tzHPD15kQb2xiOH3iAMDEbmOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADA77miYhtDM60Tz97cNYjskaMZK+Ms=PjR6Odm0y7B8y-_xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <002a01d01abc$20ee8220$62cb8660$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADA77mg2xUzSBpXac27sVOxdvbJwa_KxnBcF3riECz7=zqcx4Q@mail.gmail.com>

yeahright :D

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jonathan Rosenne <
jonathan.rosenne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To pick a nit, it should be COPYRIGHT rather than COPY RIGHT.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jonathan Rosenne
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrea
> Giammarchi
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:10 PM
> *To:* Mark Davis [image: ?]?
> *Cc:* Unicode Public
> *Subject:* Re: (R), (c) and ?
>
>
>
> Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here:
> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt
>
>
>
> I'd expect to find the following there:
>
>
>
> 00A9 FE0E; text style;  # COPY RIGHT MARK
>
> 00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK
>
>
>
> for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt
>
>
>
> Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a
> place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text.
>
>
>
> Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently
> from other emoji ?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis [image: ?]? <
> mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> standard variant sensitive
>
>
>
> ?It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive"?. Can you
> elaborate?
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>
>
>
> *? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/33425289/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emoji_u2615.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1890 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/33425289/attachment.png>

From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com  Thu Dec 18 06:54:24 2014
From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:54:24 +0000
Subject: (R), (c) and =?UTF-8?B?4oSi?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJ6uix6G+R4MK+4cOCEXfdnVWeqQof-T4LrsnU2B5tLv8u7XOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ6uix6G+R4MK+4cOCEXfdnVWeqQof-T4LrsnU2B5tLv8u7XOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141218125424.365bbc24@JRWUBU2>

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:42:13 -0200
Leonardo Boiko <leoboiko at namakajiri.net> wrote:

> For the record, the emoji selection issue is also affecting the Google
> Talk/Hangouts web client, where U+2122 (trademark, ?), U+00AE
> (registered, ?), U+00A9 (copyright, ?), and U+2194 (left right arrow,
> ?) seem to be treated as emoji and displayed in funky blue:
> 
> http://namakajiri.net/pics/screenshots/gmail_emouni.png

Is there any reason why one should wish to select between sober and
funky displays of U+2122 TRADEMARK, U+00AE REGISTERED, and U+00A9
COPYRIGHT character instance by character instance?  I confess I don't
understand why U+2194 should be subjected to special treatment.

Richard.


From everson at evertype.com  Thu Dec 18 09:19:21 2014
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:19:21 -0500
Subject: emoji are clearly the current meme fad
In-Reply-To: <5492691A.1060703@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <54906D85.5090900@ix.netcom.com>
 <1BE269FB-D03F-4B7D-B328-B7A1A633F7A1@evertype.com>
 <5492691A.1060703@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <D3A1B60E-B263-460D-909D-28F92E32A09E@evertype.com>

On 18 Dec 2014, at 00:41, Martin J. D?rst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

> On 2014/12/18 06:49, Michael Everson wrote:
>> Clearly the plural of emoji is emojis.
> 
> Not in Japanese, where there are no plural forms.

I?m not concerned with the usage in Japanese. 

> The question of what it is/will be in English will be decided by usage, not by grammar.

Bill Nye says emojis. I had coffee with someone yesterday who did the same. Seems usage has decided it, and ?not by grammar? is meaningless in this context, as pluralization of neologisms in English by adding -s is in fact grammar.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/



From andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 09:36:35 2014
From: andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com (Andrea Giammarchi)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:36:35 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IChSKSwgKGMpIGFuZCDihKI=?=
In-Reply-To: <20141218125424.365bbc24@JRWUBU2>
References: <CADA77miR7E0f3=T0XtsmXf=B1FhT1U-1DvBOJJ7xyjOLwq4JhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ6uix6G+R4MK+4cOCEXfdnVWeqQof-T4LrsnU2B5tLv8u7XOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141218125424.365bbc24@JRWUBU2>
Message-ID: <CADA77micHcgqT-a5dFt6puTQRh_RsvJ6YomDcJ0Z3+W=nWc6Yw@mail.gmail.com>

I'd say highly subjective, generally speaking, but the problem here is that
there are graphics representations of those and it's not clear when these
should be preferred over just plain text representation.

Hence my initial question if it was by accident that those chars got in
(and yeah, maybe early mistake or something ... I hope we can fix them now
in a more explicit way)

Best Regards

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Richard Wordingham <
richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:42:13 -0200
> Leonardo Boiko <leoboiko at namakajiri.net> wrote:
>
> > For the record, the emoji selection issue is also affecting the Google
> > Talk/Hangouts web client, where U+2122 (trademark, ?), U+00AE
> > (registered, ?), U+00A9 (copyright, ?), and U+2194 (left right arrow,
> > ?) seem to be treated as emoji and displayed in funky blue:
> >
> > http://namakajiri.net/pics/screenshots/gmail_emouni.png
>
> Is there any reason why one should wish to select between sober and
> funky displays of U+2122 TRADEMARK, U+00AE REGISTERED, and U+00A9
> COPYRIGHT character instance by character instance?  I confess I don't
> understand why U+2194 should be subjected to special treatment.
>
> Richard.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141218/04d9c346/attachment.html>

From doug at ewellic.org  Thu Dec 18 14:36:55 2014
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:36:55 -0700
Subject: (R), (c) and =?UTF-8?Q?=3F?=
Message-ID: <20141218133654.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.d172fa449c.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>

Richard Wordingham <richard dot wordingham at ntlworld dot com> wrote:

> Is there any reason why one should wish to select between sober and
> funky displays of U+2122 TRADEMARK, U+00AE REGISTERED, and U+00A9
> COPYRIGHT character instance by character instance?

I have to agree. If these characters need special cute emoji
representations in arbitrary text, is there such a thing as a character
with a visible glyph that does not?

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org



From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com  Tue Dec 23 11:57:33 2014
From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:57:33 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
Message-ID: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>

Unicode encoding policy
There is a document.
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm
Within the document, the following are interesting items.
E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272]
Discussion. UTC took no action at this time.
Later, in the same document is the following.
E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272R]
[141-C6] Consensus: Add the block U+1F900..U+1F9FF Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs for Unicode version 8.0.
The referenced document contains links to various requests and petitions for additional emoji characters.
In the referenced document, within section C, is the following.
5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
No
----
This appears to be a major change in encoding policy.
This, in my opinion, is a welcome, progressive change in policy that allows new characters for use in a pure electronic technology to be added into regular Unicode without a requirement to first establish widespread use by using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.
I feel that it is now therefore possible to seek encoding of symbols, perhaps in abstract emoji format and semi-abstract emoji format, so as to implement a system for communication through the language barrier by whole localizable sentences, with that system designed by interested people without the need to produce any legacy data that is encoded using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.
A first draft petition could be produced and then later drafts developed by consensus and, when drafting has produced a document for an initial core system then a petition could be submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee.
Once in use, the system could have additional symbols added to it, gradually, so as to expand its capabilities as needs are identified.
So I am writing to ask if people on this mailing list would be interested in discussing and perhaps encouraging and participating in the development of this system please?
William Overington
23 December 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141223/1544a3e3/attachment.html>

From doug at ewellic.org  Tue Dec 23 15:51:12 2014
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:51:12 -0700
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
Message-ID: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>

William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
wrote:

> 5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
> No
> ----
> This appears to be a major change in encoding policy.
> This, in my opinion, is a welcome, progressive change in policy that
> allows new characters for use in a pure electronic technology to be
> added into regular Unicode without a requirement to first establish
> widespread use by using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

It is exactly the change I was worried about, the precedent I was afraid
would be set.

> I feel that it is now therefore possible to seek encoding of symbols,
> perhaps in abstract emoji format and semi-abstract emoji format, so as
> to implement a system for communication through the language barrier
> by whole localizable sentences, with that system designed by
> interested people without the need to produce any legacy data that is
> encoded using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

Sadly, I can no longer state with any confidence that such a proposal is
out of scope for Unicode, as I tried to do for a decade or more.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org



From eik at iki.fi  Tue Dec 23 16:02:06 2014
From: eik at iki.fi (Erkki I Kolehmainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:02:06 +0200
Subject: VS: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
Message-ID: <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>

Mr. Overington,

 

The question of support for localizable sentences has been raised by you on several occasions. For a number of valid reasons, It has never received any noticeable support, let alone the kind of support that you are asking for now.

 

Sincerely,  

 

Erkki I. Kolehmainen

Tilkankatu 12 A 3, 00300 Helsinki, Finland

Mob: +358400825943, Tel / Fax (by arr.): +358943682643

 

L?hett?j?: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] Puolesta William_J_G Overington
L?hetetty: 23. joulukuuta 2014 19:58
Vastaanottaja: unicode at unicode.org
Aihe: Unicode encoding policy

 

Unicode encoding policy

There is a document.

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm

Within the document, the following are interesting items.

E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272]

Discussion. UTC took no action at this time.

Later, in the same document is the following.

E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272R]

[141-C6] Consensus: Add the block U+1F900..U+1F9FF Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs for Unicode version 8.0.

The referenced document contains links to various requests and petitions for additional emoji characters.

In the referenced document, within section C, is the following.

5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
No

----

This appears to be a major change in encoding policy.

This, in my opinion, is a welcome, progressive change in policy that allows new characters for use in a pure electronic technology to be added into regular Unicode without a requirement to first establish widespread use by using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

I feel that it is now therefore possible to seek encoding of symbols, perhaps in abstract emoji format and semi-abstract emoji format, so as to implement a system for communication through the language barrier by whole localizable sentences, with that system designed by interested people without the need to produce any legacy data that is encoded using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

A first draft petition could be produced and then later drafts developed by consensus and, when drafting has produced a document for an initial core system then a petition could be submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee.

Once in use, the system could have additional symbols added to it, gradually, so as to expand its capabilities as needs are identified.

So I am writing to ask if people on this mailing list would be interested in discussing and perhaps encouraging and participating in the development of this system please?

William Overington

23 December 2014



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141224/56f411f4/attachment.html>

From textexin at xencraft.com  Tue Dec 23 18:50:25 2014
From: textexin at xencraft.com (Tex Texin)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:50:25 -0800
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
 <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
Message-ID: <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>

True, however as William points out, apparently the rules have changed, so it isn?t unreasonable to ask again whether the rules now allow it, or if people that dismissed the idea in the past would now consider it.

 

Personally, I think this is the wrong place for it, and as has been suggested numerous times, it makes sense to host the discussion elsewhere among interested parties.

 

Although, I am not interested in the general case, there is a need for specialized cases. Just as some road sign symbols are near universal, there is a need for symbols for quick and universal communications in emergencies. Identifying places of safety or danger on a map, or for the injured to describe symptoms, pains, and the nature of their injury (or first aid workers to discuss victims? issues), or to describe the nature of a calamity (fire, landslide, bomb, attack, etc.), etc.

 

William, You might consider identifying where there are needs for such universal text, and working with groups that would benefit, to get support for universal text symbols.

 

tex

 

 

 

 

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Erkki I Kolehmainen
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 2:02 PM
To: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com; unicode at unicode.org
Subject: VS: Unicode encoding policy

 

Mr. Overington,

 

The question of support for localizable sentences has been raised by you on several occasions. For a number of valid reasons, It has never received any noticeable support, let alone the kind of support that you are asking for now.

 

Sincerely,  

 

Erkki I. Kolehmainen

Tilkankatu 12 A 3, 00300 Helsinki, Finland

Mob: +358400825943, Tel / Fax (by arr.): +358943682643

 

L?hett?j?: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] Puolesta William_J_G Overington
L?hetetty: 23. joulukuuta 2014 19:58
Vastaanottaja: unicode at unicode.org
Aihe: Unicode encoding policy

 

Unicode encoding policy

There is a document.

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm

Within the document, the following are interesting items.

E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272]

Discussion. UTC took no action at this time.

Later, in the same document is the following.

E.1.7 Emoji Additions: popular requests [Edberg, Davis, L2/14-272R]

[141-C6] Consensus: Add the block U+1F900..U+1F9FF Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs for Unicode version 8.0.

The referenced document contains links to various requests and petitions for additional emoji characters.

In the referenced document, within section C, is the following.

5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
No

----

This appears to be a major change in encoding policy.

This, in my opinion, is a welcome, progressive change in policy that allows new characters for use in a pure electronic technology to be added into regular Unicode without a requirement to first establish widespread use by using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

I feel that it is now therefore possible to seek encoding of symbols, perhaps in abstract emoji format and semi-abstract emoji format, so as to implement a system for communication through the language barrier by whole localizable sentences, with that system designed by interested people without the need to produce any legacy data that is encoded using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.

A first draft petition could be produced and then later drafts developed by consensus and, when drafting has produced a document for an initial core system then a petition could be submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee.

Once in use, the system could have additional symbols added to it, gradually, so as to expand its capabilities as needs are identified.

So I am writing to ask if people on this mailing list would be interested in discussing and perhaps encouraging and participating in the development of this system please?

William Overington

23 December 2014

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141223/a531a41f/attachment.html>

From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp  Tue Dec 23 20:55:10 2014
From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?=)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:55:10 +0900
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
 <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
 <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
Message-ID: <549A2B0E.7060909@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

On 2014/12/24 09:50, Tex Texin wrote:
> True, however as William points out, apparently the rules have changed,

I hope the rules get clarified to clearly state that these are exceptions.

> so it isn?t unreasonable to ask again whether the rules now allow it, or if people that dismissed the idea in the past would now consider it.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think this is the wrong place for it, and as has been suggested numerous times, it makes sense to host the discussion elsewhere among interested parties.
>
>
>
> Although, I am not interested in the general case, there is a need for specialized cases. Just as some road sign symbols are near universal,

Actually not. I have been driving (and taking drivers' licences tests) 
in Switzerland, Japan, and the US. There are lots of similarities, but 
it'd be difficult for me to come up with an example where they are all 
identical (up to glyph/design differences).

Please see for yourself e.g. at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Switzerland
http://www.japandriverslicense.com/japanese-road-signs.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_States

In the US, there are also differences by state.

> there is a need for symbols for quick and universal communications in emergencies. Identifying places of safety or danger on a map, or for the injured to describe symptoms, pains, and the nature of their injury (or first aid workers to discuss victims? issues), or to describe the nature of a calamity (fire, landslide, bomb, attack, etc.), etc.

Such symbols mostly already exist. For a quick and easy introduction, 
see e.g. http://www.iso.org/iso/graphical-symbols_booklet.pdf.

If use of such symbols is found in running text, or if there is a strong 
need to use them in running text, some of these might be added to 
Unicode in the future. But they wouldn't be things invented out of the 
blue for marketing purposes, they would be well established already.

> William, You might consider identifying where there are needs for such universal text, and working with groups that would benefit, to get support for universal text symbols.

So the first order of business for William (or others) should be to 
investigate what's already around.

Regards,   Martin.


From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Wed Dec 24 00:08:32 2014
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:08:32 -0800
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
References: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com>

On 12/23/2014 1:51 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
> wrote:
>
>> 5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
>> No
>> ----
>> This appears to be a major change in encoding policy.
>> This, in my opinion, is a welcome, progressive change in policy that
>> allows new characters for use in a pure electronic technology to be
>> added into regular Unicode without a requirement to first establish
>> widespread use by using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.
> It is exactly the change I was worried about, the precedent I was afraid
> would be set.

Requiring long-term use of characters at an alternate code location 
always struck me as counter-productive, because it becomes disruptive at 
the point where some character finally has been established. In contrast 
to true "experimental" use.

Therefore, recognizing that for some code points there can be critical 
mass of implementation support straight from the moment of publication 
is useful.

This is definitely not the same as saying that any idea, however 
half-baked, of a new symbol should be encoded 'on-spec' to see whether 
it garners usage.

The "critical mass" of support is now assumed for currency symbols, some 
special symbols like emoji, and should be granted to additional types of 
symbols, punctuations and letters, whenever there is an "authority" that 
controls normative orthography or notation.

Whether this is for an orthography reform in some country or addition to 
the standard math symbols supported by AMS journals, such external 
adoption can signify immediate "critical need" and "critical mass of 
adoption" for the relevant characters.

In these case, to require years of PUA code usage is, to repeat, 
counterproductive. It doesn't alter the fact that the codes will 
eventually be needed (unless one were to confidently expect failure of 
some reform) and only leads to the creation of data in the meantime that 
have to be converted or cannot be accessed reliably.

A clear-cut recognition by the UTC (and WG2) of this particular dynamic 
(beyond currency codes) would be helpful -- particularly as Unicode has 
matured to the point of being the only game in town. The current 
methodology of researching typeset data is well suited to the encoding 
of existing or historic practice, but ill-suited to dealing with ongoing 
development of scripts and symbol sets.

Taking this new stance makes it easier to contrast it with hobbyists, 
enthusiasts and individual tinkerers attempts at inventing a better 
world through symbols or new letters. These latter cases lack both 
"critical need" as well as "critical mass" unless they are first adopted 
by much larger (and/or more authoritative) groups of users.

There is an inherent risk that large groups of users can follow "fads" 
that require certain symbols that see huge usage for a while and then 
get abandoned. While this is hard to predict, it is not that different 
from historical changes in writing systems - even if the trends there 
played out over longer time frames.

A./
>
>> I feel that it is now therefore possible to seek encoding of symbols,
>> perhaps in abstract emoji format and semi-abstract emoji format, so as
>> to implement a system for communication through the language barrier
>> by whole localizable sentences, with that system designed by
>> interested people without the need to produce any legacy data that is
>> encoded using an encoding within a Unicode Private Use Area.
> Sadly, I can no longer state with any confidence that such a proposal is
> out of scope for Unicode, as I tried to do for a decade or more.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>


From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Wed Dec 24 00:46:49 2014
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:46:49 -0800
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
 <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
 <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
Message-ID: <549A6159.4000902@ix.netcom.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141223/5905a93f/attachment.html>

From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com  Wed Dec 24 02:14:05 2014
From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 08:14:05 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
 <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
 <007301d01f13$9bb42ae0$d31c80a0$@xencraft.com>
Message-ID: <2682219.3123.1419408845180.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>

Hi Tex
Thank you for replying.
The following four simulations are about seeking information, through the language barrier, about relatives and friends after a disaster.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/locse027_four_simulations.pdf
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/library.htm
I am now adapting the designs of the symbols to be more emoji-like in appearance, namely a 1:1 aspect ration and designed for clear viewing on a mobile device.
William
24 December 2014
----Original message----
>From : textexin at xencraft.com
Date : 24/12/2014 - 00:50 (GMTST)
To : eik at iki.fi, wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com, unicode at unicode.org
Subject : RE: Unicode encoding policy
True, however as William points out, apparently the rules have changed, so it isn?t unreasonable to ask again whether the rules now allow it, or if people that dismissed the idea in the past would now consider it.
 
Personally, I think this is the wrong place for it, and as has been suggested numerous times, it makes sense to host the discussion elsewhere among interested parties.
 
Although, I am not interested in the general case, there is a need for specialized cases. Just as some road sign symbols are near universal, there is a need for symbols for quick and universal communications in emergencies. Identifying places of safety or danger on a map, or for the injured to describe symptoms, pains, and the nature of their injury (or first aid workers to discuss victims? issues), or to describe the nature of a calamity (fire, landslide, bomb, attack, etc.), etc.
 
William, You might consider identifying where there are needs for such universal text, and working with groups that would benefit, to get support for universal text symbols.
 
tex
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141224/c54448a2/attachment.html>

From neil at tonal.clara.co.uk  Thu Dec 25 08:14:27 2014
From: neil at tonal.clara.co.uk (Neil Harris)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:14:27 +0000
Subject: Admuncher javascript on Unicode site
Message-ID: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk>

I've just noticed that loading the web page

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm

loads a script from "interceptedby.admuncher.com"

This seems pretty peculiar to me. Is this intended?

Neil Harris


From rick at unicode.org  Thu Dec 25 11:47:21 2014
From: rick at unicode.org (Rick McGowan)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:47:21 -0800
Subject: Admuncher javascript on Unicode site
In-Reply-To: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk>
References: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk>
Message-ID: <549C4DA9.6020006@unicode.org>

Thank you for the report.

This is an error on my part: saving an HTML file from a browser window
on my own machine while running an ad blocker. I usually don't do that. 
I will correct this file and update it as soon as I have an opportunity.

Regards,
	Rick

On 12/25/2014 6:14 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> I've just noticed that loading the web page
>
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm
>
> loads a script from "interceptedby.admuncher.com"
>
> This seems pretty peculiar to me. Is this intended?
>
> Neil Harris
>

From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Thu Dec 25 17:31:53 2014
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:31:53 -0800
Subject: Admuncher javascript on Unicode site
In-Reply-To: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk>
References: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk>
Message-ID: <549C9E69.30300@ix.netcom.com>

Neil,

I don't think that is true for anyone but you.

The "ghostery" add-on for FF does not show anything being loaded, and 
the page source also does not included the string "admuncher".

Is this an add-on that you are using?

A./

On 12/25/2014 6:14 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> I've just noticed that loading the web page
>
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm
>
> loads a script from "interceptedby.admuncher.com"
>
> This seems pretty peculiar to me. Is this intended?
>
> Neil Harris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>


From shervinafshar at gmail.com  Thu Dec 25 18:28:04 2014
From: shervinafshar at gmail.com (Shervin Afshar)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 16:28:04 -0800
Subject: Admuncher javascript on Unicode site
In-Reply-To: <549C9E69.30300@ix.netcom.com>
References: <549C1BC3.3010706@tonal.clara.co.uk> <549C9E69.30300@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <CA+ONODnk8K3mAP37Rifq5HjrRZ-YiSi23fwh5Y7+Fn2HED196A@mail.gmail.com>

I think Rick fixed the issue in the meantime.

? Shervin

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Neil,
>
> I don't think that is true for anyone but you.
>
> The "ghostery" add-on for FF does not show anything being loaded, and the
> page source also does not included the string "admuncher".
>
> Is this an add-on that you are using?
>
> A./
>
> On 12/25/2014 6:14 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed that loading the web page
>>
>> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14250.htm
>>
>> loads a script from "interceptedby.admuncher.com"
>>
>> This seems pretty peculiar to me. Is this intended?
>>
>> Neil Harris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unicode mailing list
>> Unicode at unicode.org
>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141225/b2ea56fe/attachment.html>

From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com  Mon Dec 29 04:51:05 2014
From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:51:05 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
References: <27378088.42099.1419357453536.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>
 <000001d01efc$179d96e0$46d8c4a0$@fi>
Message-ID: <7217620.7898.1419850265102.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost>

Erkki I. Kolehmainen wrote as follows:
> The question of support for localizable sentences has been
raised by you on several occasions. For a number of valid reasons, It has never
received any noticeable support, let alone the kind of support that you are
asking for now.
Well, it is true that there has been little interest, though one man kindly translated the early sentences into Swedish, which has been of great help, and he also suggested an additional sentence, which is now part of the system.
The lack of interest has always puzzled me, I had thought that with so many people on this mailing list who are interested in languages and communication, including many people who have a native language other than English, that there would be great interest in trying to produce a useful system.
Now that there is the precedent of the encoding of the unicorn, perhaps things will be different as there is now the prospect of being able to develop and standardize a non-proprietary system that can be put into place for people to use without needing to first achieve either a widespread non-standardized implementation or a change in the rules just for this system..
Regarding your claim about valid reasons.
Could you possibly say what you consider to be the valid reasons please?
William Overington
29 December 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141229/23d03da8/attachment.html>

From doug at ewellic.org  Mon Dec 29 12:32:59 2014
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:32:59 -0700
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
 <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <5D04559180924E12B9C02E93DB063BFD@DougEwell>

Asmus Freytag wrote:

> The "critical mass" of support is now assumed for currency symbols,
> some special symbols like emoji, and should be granted to additional
> types of symbols, punctuations and letters, whenever there is an
> "authority" that controls normative orthography or notation.
>
> Whether this is for an orthography reform in some country or addition
> to the standard math symbols supported by AMS journals, such external
> adoption can signify immediate "critical need" and "critical mass of
> option" for the relevant characters.

To me, it is remarkable that the "critical mass of support" argument 
that is applied, entirely appropriately, to new currency symbols 
(however misguided the motives for such might be) and math symbols and 
characters for people's names, is now also applied to BURRITO and 
UNICORN FACE.

But then, I remember when folks used to cite the WG2 "Principles and 
Procedures" document for examples of what was and was not a good 
candidate for encoding. That seems so long ago now.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org ? 


From doug at ewellic.org  Mon Dec 29 13:00:27 2014
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:00:27 -0700
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1419876001.930.unicode@unicode.org>
References: <mailman.1.1419876001.930.unicode@unicode.org>
Message-ID: <D5F8DC8EBC5A45E298A1AA0BCEF9C051@DougEwell>

William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> 
wrote:

> The lack of interest has always puzzled me, I had thought that with so
> many people on this mailing list who are interested in languages and
> communication, including many people who have a native language other
> than English, that there would be great interest in trying to produce
> a useful system.

I had a similar discussion some time ago with a member of this list 
regarding encoding of flags. It's an interesting idea which I think 
deserves some thought, but it's not character encoding; and therefore it 
doesn't belong in Unicode, or so I would have supposed.

I make no claim here about whether localizable sentences are interesting 
or deserving of thought. I only explain why I, interested in language 
and communication, don't believe Unicode is the proper venue for them.

> Regarding your claim about valid reasons.
>
> Could you possibly say what you consider to be the valid reasons
> please?

I'm not Erkki, but what I would have said, with my old-fashioned view of 
character encoding, is: because it's not character encoding.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org ? 


From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Mon Dec 29 13:46:34 2014
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:46:34 -0800
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <5D04559180924E12B9C02E93DB063BFD@DougEwell>
References: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
 <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com> <5D04559180924E12B9C02E93DB063BFD@DougEwell>
Message-ID: <54A1AF9A.903@ix.netcom.com>

On 12/29/2014 10:32 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
>> The "critical mass" of support is now assumed for currency symbols,
>> some special symbols like emoji, and should be granted to additional
>> types of symbols, punctuations and letters, whenever there is an
>> "authority" that controls normative orthography or notation.
>>
>> Whether this is for an orthography reform in some country or addition
>> to the standard math symbols supported by AMS journals, such external
>> adoption can signify immediate "critical need" and "critical mass of
>> option" for the relevant characters.
>
> To me, it is remarkable that the "critical mass of support" argument 
> that is applied, entirely appropriately, to new currency symbols 
> (however misguided the motives for such might be) and math symbols and 
> characters for people's names, is now also applied to BURRITO and 
> UNICORN FACE.
>
Does it - in principle - matter what a symbol is used for? If millions 
of happy users choose to communicate by peppering their messages with 
BURRITO and UNICORN FACE is that any less worthy of standardization than 
if thousands (or hundreds) of linguists use some arcane letterform to 
mark pronunciation differences between neighboring dialects on the 
Scandinavian peninsula?

The "critical mass" argument does not (and should not) make value 
judgements, but instead focus on whether the infrastructure exists to 
make a character code widely available pretty much directly after 
publication, and whether there is implicit or explicit demand that would 
guarantee that such code is actually widely used the minute it comes 
available.

For currency symbols, or for a new letter form demanded by a new or 
revised, but standard, orthography, the demand is created by some 
"authority" creating a requirement for conforming users. Because of 
that, the evaluation of the "critical mass" requirement is straightforward.

Emoji lack an "authority", but they do not lack demand. For better or 
for worse, they have grabbed significant mind share; the number of news 
reports, blogs, social media posts, shared videos and what not that were 
devoted to Emoji simply dwarfs anything reported on currency symbols in 
a comparative time frame. With tracking applications devoted to them, 
anyone can convince themselves, in real time, that the entire repertoire 
is being used, even, as appropriate for such a collection, with a clear 
differentiation by frequency.

Nevertheless, the indication is clear that any emoji that will be added 
by the relevant vendors is going to be used as soon as it comes 
available. Further, as no vendor has a closed ecosystem, to be usable 
requires agreement on how they are coded.

The critical question, and I fully understand that this gives you pause, 
is one of selection. There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential 
additions to the emoji collection, some fear the set is, in principle, 
endless. Lacking an "authority" how does one come to a principled 
agreement on encoding any emoji now, rather than later.

One would run an experiment, which is to say, create an alternate 
environment where users can use non-standard emoji and then the 
Uni-scientists in white lab coats could count the frequency of usage and 
promote the cream off the top to standardized codes.

Or one could run an experiment where one defines a small number of 
slots, say 40, and opens them up for public discussion, and proceeds on 
that basis. Yes, that would turn the UTC into the "authority".

My personal take is that the former approach is inappropriate for 
something that is in high demand and actively supported; the latter I 
can accept, provisionally, as an experiment to try to deal with an 
evolving system. Because of the ability to track, in real time, the use 
or non-use of any of the new additions it would be a true experiment, 
the outcome of which can be accurately measured. If it should lead to 
the standardization of few dozen symbols that prove not as popular as 
predicted, then we would conclude a failure of the experiment, and 
retire this process. Otherwise, I'd have no problem cautiously 
continuing with it.

> But then, I remember when folks used to cite the WG2 "Principles and 
> Procedures" document for examples of what was and was not a good 
> candidate for encoding. That seems so long ago now.

The P&P, like most by-laws and constitutions, are living documents. In 
this case, they try to capture best practice, without taking from the 
UTC (or WG2) the ability to deal with new or changed situations.

The degree to which emoji have captured the popular imagination is 
unprecedented. It means the game has changed. Let's give the UTC the 
space to work out appropriate coping mechanisms.

A./

PS: this does not mean that, for all other types of code points, the 
existing wording on the P&P can simply be disregarded. In fact, the end 
result will be to see them updated with additional criteria explicitly 
geared towards the kind of high-profile use case we are discussing here.

From verdy_p at wanadoo.fr  Wed Dec 31 01:36:18 2014
From: verdy_p at wanadoo.fr (Philippe Verdy)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:36:18 +0100
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <54A1AF9A.903@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
 <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com> <5D04559180924E12B9C02E93DB063BFD@DougEwell>
 <54A1AF9A.903@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <CAGa7JC1x+Dzhi8eXtyx9tcSb0YMtzD4p9vzaNA0iuYG=TK77hA@mail.gmail.com>

One important factor is also stability: some symbols may get a temporary
interest and then raidly abandoned for a new flavor, hardly related to the
previously encoded one.
Stability is also a need when UTC resources and work time is limited to
focus in things that have been already waited for long (even if there were
some difficult discussions, notably when trying to deal with variants and
different usage patterns, or in more complex situations discovered with
difficulties like text layout; or creation of distinctive of contextual
ligatures, or when discussing about some critical character properties such
as word boundaries, or expected specific alignments with other characters
including with some other scripts).
For that the UTC has a useful tool: the roadmap which attempts to organize
the standardization work by topics and communities of interest, in order to
avoid duplicate discussions or create coherent proposals that will also
resist other future additions.
Emojis however exist inly in relation to themselves, and their coherence
really comes from their adoption on a range of devices or OSes and common
applications.

Large vendors (like Google for Android, Apple for iOS, and Microsoft for
Windows, but also some wellknown websites connected to many others like
Yahoo, Twitter or Facebook and their supported applications running on
various OSes and devices, or Baidu in China, or Mail.ru in Russia, are also
desiring to open their own sets to offer support to users communicating
from devices/OSes made by other vendors inclujding in other countries.
There could be also other "killer" apps amde available on various OSes and
devices which could benefir from this standardization, such as keyboard
extensions for smartphones/tablets, or sets of generic icons commnly needed
for user interfaces (e.g. the icons that appear in Gmail for rich text
editing or for managing emails and folders; people want to be able to use
similar looking icons even if their exact design change specifically,
simply because websites and support services will frequently reference them
and people will want to discuss about their use in varous contexts; the
same is true about typical icons found on popular navigation maps).

People will understand those icons/symbols and will use them because they
understand clearly what they mean in similar kind of usages. Those symbols
are good candidate for standardization indepedendantly of their
site-specific or device specific look (which can also evolve across
versions, such as the symbols for buttons at the bottom of Android
displays: having a standardized character for these evolving icons can also
help application authors to describe their own UI and how to use them on a
larger range of devices and versions: users will see the appropriate icon
for their own local device in its current brand and version, but support
pages do not need to be rewritten/modified to show different screenshots;
these visible icons will also work if users have installed a different UI
theme or if these icons are relocated elsewhere than what is displayed in
basic screenshots made on a few devices in some old versions of their
specific UI); the need for this icons is the same across all these devices
and versions for similar functions. So we have icons/symbols with similar
"spirit" across a large range of devices for basic functions: telephone
handset to place a call or to reply, or to close a communication.

In fact this is the same kind of things that have been used since long for
icons for controlling all audio devices : play, stop, rewind, forward,
pause, power up, power off, enter sleep mode, wake up, mute, volume
up/down, icons for activating/deactivating Wifi or Bluetooth, icons for the
headset or the radio, ejecting a media; start recording... Look also on a
wide range of remote TV controlers. Note all of them are using distinctive
glyphs, some are just differentiated by colors such as the
red/yellow/green/blue buttons used in Teletext remote controlers (in my
opinion color is not a requirement, and this could also be buttons with
readable labels in a box, if need for accessibility is a demand: this has
been recently standardized for tinting facial emojis by humane skin color,
with an interesting proposed alternate representation where color can also
be represented by a non ligatured monchromatic glyph).

In all these cases, the demand for it and their use in various contexts
where they can be tuned locally to match user expectations, is an excellent
reason for standardizing them without breaking their intended meaning in
those specific tuning contexts.

Other interesting sets are those standardized on road signs, or warnin
signs on various products (they are frequently international because their
meaning is legally imperative for road users) or because their informative
meaning is about services found almost everywhere in the world (e.g.
luggage disposal, taxis, toilets, shower, hospital, parking, lunch places,
vehicle categories, tolls on motorways, TV sets, ... Some of them are very
country specific (such as the "red carot" used in France signaling tobacco
resellers). Those symbols are not just present on roads or on maps but will
be found aso on published tourism guides or as indicators in websites
showing coherent sets of generic services such as hotels or campings to
list their additional local services.

Those sets initially are inventions but as soon as their usage expands and
their meaning starts being widely understood in a country, they will leak
to other places with minor variants. But they all have in common that they
were initially not encoded as characters, their experimentation and
use developed and then came the time for standardizing more of less these
variants, nationally or internationally. Then they started being used also
in other contexts for which they were not initially meant (e.g. the STOP
side). They also had already several authorities regulating their use in
specific contexts in which they became mandatory or highly recommanded. The
UTC may now encode them.: usage is demonstrated, there's stabiity, there's
already an authority supporting them and ready to accept their use by
everyone.

2014-12-29 20:46 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>:

> On 12/29/2014 10:32 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>>
>>  The "critical mass" of support is now assumed for currency symbols,
>>> some special symbols like emoji, and should be granted to additional
>>> types of symbols, punctuations and letters, whenever there is an
>>> "authority" that controls normative orthography or notation.
>>>
>>> Whether this is for an orthography reform in some country or addition
>>> to the standard math symbols supported by AMS journals, such external
>>> adoption can signify immediate "critical need" and "critical mass of
>>> option" for the relevant characters.
>>>
>>
>> To me, it is remarkable that the "critical mass of support" argument that
>> is applied, entirely appropriately, to new currency symbols (however
>> misguided the motives for such might be) and math symbols and characters
>> for people's names, is now also applied to BURRITO and UNICORN FACE.
>>
>>  Does it - in principle - matter what a symbol is used for? If millions
> of happy users choose to communicate by peppering their messages with
> BURRITO and UNICORN FACE is that any less worthy of standardization than if
> thousands (or hundreds) of linguists use some arcane letterform to mark
> pronunciation differences between neighboring dialects on the Scandinavian
> peninsula?
>
> The "critical mass" argument does not (and should not) make value
> judgements, but instead focus on whether the infrastructure exists to make
> a character code widely available pretty much directly after publication,
> and whether there is implicit or explicit demand that would guarantee that
> such code is actually widely used the minute it comes available.
>
> For currency symbols, or for a new letter form demanded by a new or
> revised, but standard, orthography, the demand is created by some
> "authority" creating a requirement for conforming users. Because of that,
> the evaluation of the "critical mass" requirement is straightforward.
>
> Emoji lack an "authority", but they do not lack demand. For better or for
> worse, they have grabbed significant mind share; the number of news
> reports, blogs, social media posts, shared videos and what not that were
> devoted to Emoji simply dwarfs anything reported on currency symbols in a
> comparative time frame. With tracking applications devoted to them, anyone
> can convince themselves, in real time, that the entire repertoire is being
> used, even, as appropriate for such a collection, with a clear
> differentiation by frequency.
>
> Nevertheless, the indication is clear that any emoji that will be added by
> the relevant vendors is going to be used as soon as it comes available.
> Further, as no vendor has a closed ecosystem, to be usable requires
> agreement on how they are coded.
>
> The critical question, and I fully understand that this gives you pause,
> is one of selection. There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential
> additions to the emoji collection, some fear the set is, in principle,
> endless. Lacking an "authority" how does one come to a principled agreement
> on encoding any emoji now, rather than later.
>
> One would run an experiment, which is to say, create an alternate
> environment where users can use non-standard emoji and then the
> Uni-scientists in white lab coats could count the frequency of usage and
> promote the cream off the top to standardized codes.
>
> Or one could run an experiment where one defines a small number of slots,
> say 40, and opens them up for public discussion, and proceeds on that
> basis. Yes, that would turn the UTC into the "authority".
>
> My personal take is that the former approach is inappropriate for
> something that is in high demand and actively supported; the latter I can
> accept, provisionally, as an experiment to try to deal with an evolving
> system. Because of the ability to track, in real time, the use or non-use
> of any of the new additions it would be a true experiment, the outcome of
> which can be accurately measured. If it should lead to the standardization
> of few dozen symbols that prove not as popular as predicted, then we would
> conclude a failure of the experiment, and retire this process. Otherwise,
> I'd have no problem cautiously continuing with it.
>
>  But then, I remember when folks used to cite the WG2 "Principles and
>> Procedures" document for examples of what was and was not a good candidate
>> for encoding. That seems so long ago now.
>>
>
> The P&P, like most by-laws and constitutions, are living documents. In
> this case, they try to capture best practice, without taking from the UTC
> (or WG2) the ability to deal with new or changed situations.
>
> The degree to which emoji have captured the popular imagination is
> unprecedented. It means the game has changed. Let's give the UTC the space
> to work out appropriate coping mechanisms.
>
> A./
>
> PS: this does not mean that, for all other types of code points, the
> existing wording on the P&P can simply be disregarded. In fact, the end
> result will be to see them updated with additional criteria explicitly
> geared towards the kind of high-profile use case we are discussing here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141231/65cddeb0/attachment.html>

From mark at macchiato.com  Wed Dec 31 04:53:02 2014
From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:53:02 +0100
Subject: Unicode encoding policy
In-Reply-To: <54A1AF9A.903@ix.netcom.com>
References: <20141223145112.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ed57b6552e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
 <549A5860.90704@ix.netcom.com> <5D04559180924E12B9C02E93DB063BFD@DougEwell>
 <54A1AF9A.903@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_HpND-ApoTBbpCwJmQF=GgsFJ=_Og3nFiTBUFiir01Nkw@mail.gmail.com>

Nicely put, Asmus!


Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*? Il meglio ? l?inimico del bene ?*

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 12/29/2014 10:32 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>>
>>  The "critical mass" of support is now assumed for currency symbols,
>>> some special symbols like emoji, and should be granted to additional
>>> types of symbols, punctuations and letters, whenever there is an
>>> "authority" that controls normative orthography or notation.
>>>
>>> Whether this is for an orthography reform in some country or addition
>>> to the standard math symbols supported by AMS journals, such external
>>> adoption can signify immediate "critical need" and "critical mass of
>>> option" for the relevant characters.
>>>
>>
>> To me, it is remarkable that the "critical mass of support" argument that
>> is applied, entirely appropriately, to new currency symbols (however
>> misguided the motives for such might be) and math symbols and characters
>> for people's names, is now also applied to BURRITO and UNICORN FACE.
>>
>>  Does it - in principle - matter what a symbol is used for? If millions
> of happy users choose to communicate by peppering their messages with
> BURRITO and UNICORN FACE is that any less worthy of standardization than if
> thousands (or hundreds) of linguists use some arcane letterform to mark
> pronunciation differences between neighboring dialects on the Scandinavian
> peninsula?
>
> The "critical mass" argument does not (and should not) make value
> judgements, but instead focus on whether the infrastructure exists to make
> a character code widely available pretty much directly after publication,
> and whether there is implicit or explicit demand that would guarantee that
> such code is actually widely used the minute it comes available.
>
> For currency symbols, or for a new letter form demanded by a new or
> revised, but standard, orthography, the demand is created by some
> "authority" creating a requirement for conforming users. Because of that,
> the evaluation of the "critical mass" requirement is straightforward.
>
> Emoji lack an "authority", but they do not lack demand. For better or for
> worse, they have grabbed significant mind share; the number of news
> reports, blogs, social media posts, shared videos and what not that were
> devoted to Emoji simply dwarfs anything reported on currency symbols in a
> comparative time frame. With tracking applications devoted to them, anyone
> can convince themselves, in real time, that the entire repertoire is being
> used, even, as appropriate for such a collection, with a clear
> differentiation by frequency.
>
> Nevertheless, the indication is clear that any emoji that will be added by
> the relevant vendors is going to be used as soon as it comes available.
> Further, as no vendor has a closed ecosystem, to be usable requires
> agreement on how they are coded.
>
> The critical question, and I fully understand that this gives you pause,
> is one of selection. There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential
> additions to the emoji collection, some fear the set is, in principle,
> endless. Lacking an "authority" how does one come to a principled agreement
> on encoding any emoji now, rather than later.
>
> One would run an experiment, which is to say, create an alternate
> environment where users can use non-standard emoji and then the
> Uni-scientists in white lab coats could count the frequency of usage and
> promote the cream off the top to standardized codes.
>
> Or one could run an experiment where one defines a small number of slots,
> say 40, and opens them up for public discussion, and proceeds on that
> basis. Yes, that would turn the UTC into the "authority".
>
> My personal take is that the former approach is inappropriate for
> something that is in high demand and actively supported; the latter I can
> accept, provisionally, as an experiment to try to deal with an evolving
> system. Because of the ability to track, in real time, the use or non-use
> of any of the new additions it would be a true experiment, the outcome of
> which can be accurately measured. If it should lead to the standardization
> of few dozen symbols that prove not as popular as predicted, then we would
> conclude a failure of the experiment, and retire this process. Otherwise,
> I'd have no problem cautiously continuing with it.
>
>  But then, I remember when folks used to cite the WG2 "Principles and
>> Procedures" document for examples of what was and was not a good candidate
>> for encoding. That seems so long ago now.
>>
>
> The P&P, like most by-laws and constitutions, are living documents. In
> this case, they try to capture best practice, without taking from the UTC
> (or WG2) the ability to deal with new or changed situations.
>
> The degree to which emoji have captured the popular imagination is
> unprecedented. It means the game has changed. Let's give the UTC the space
> to work out appropriate coping mechanisms.
>
> A./
>
> PS: this does not mean that, for all other types of code points, the
> existing wording on the P&P can simply be disregarded. In fact, the end
> result will be to see them updated with additional criteria explicitly
> geared towards the kind of high-profile use case we are discussing here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20141231/2eb6b2e4/attachment.html>