Unicode block for programming related symbols and codepoints?

[Shervin Afshar]

>
> There is no longer any requirement that the robot faces and
> burritos appear first in any sort of industry character set extension,
> with which Unicode is then obliged to maintain compatibility.


Only if you don't consider existing usage and popular requests as
requirement and precedence; for example Gmail had Robot Face for a long
time.

↪ Shervin

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> Frédéric Grosshans <frederic dot grosshans at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > The including of emoji was a considerable debate here, with people
> > strongly against and strongly for. The trick is that they were already
> > used as digital characters by Japanese Telcos and their millions of
> > customers. They were de facto encoded as characters in Japanese text
> > messages. At the time of encoding, the spread of smartphones made them
> > appear in other places (emails, web forums, etc.)
>
> Sorry, I can't let the "compatibility" argument go unchallenged again.
>
> It can be argued — and was, repeatedly and persuasively — that the
> initial collection of emoji in Unicode 6.1 [1] were added for
> compatibility with Japanese telco extensions to JIS.
>
> But the additional emoji added to Unicode 6.2 and 7.0, and planned for
> 8.0, do not have even this provenance; they were added on foot of novel
> proposals sent directly to Unicode, or (more recently) by "popular
> request." There is no longer any requirement that the robot faces and
> burritos appear first in any sort of industry character set extension,
> with which Unicode is then obliged to maintain compatibility.
>
> [1] No, I am not counting the ARIB symbols or any other long-encoded
> symbols that have been retroactively defined as emoji, to help
> legitimize the latter.
>
> Alfred Zett <alfred underscore z at web dot de) replied:
>
> > The trick is that one doesn't bargain with Telcos and similar
> > criminals. Gotta drop them hard and the pest will go away from itself
> > after five years or so.
>
> This does not help to make a case for or against encoding of anything.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150209/5ebb45a5/attachment.html>