Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability

Andreas Stötzner as at
Mon Nov 17 05:10:06 CST 2014

Am 17.11.2014 um 11:46 schrieb Leonardo Boiko:

> "Sign" is too general

in its generality it is just perfect. The sets of signs in question are most general, covering much more matters, objects and topics than the actual emoticons.

The UCS defines the 1F600 set properly as Emoticons. At least, we should (in English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. Other “symbols” (another misnomer i.m.h.o., but that’s another story) of this kind are termed “Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs”. This is not bad but unprecise as well since many of these signs are not pictographs but ideographs.
Yeah what the heck ;)

We have a long tradition of naming these things rather lousy (“Dingbats”). I am a traditionalist as a matter of fact but if precise terming is tricky I find it better to generalize than to blur.


Andreas Stötzner  Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung
Haus des Buches 
Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434
04103 Leipzig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list