Emoji (was: Re: Unicode block for programming related symbols and codepoints?)

[Doug Ewell]

Shervin Afshar <shervinafshar at gmail dot com> wrote:

> The issue is with your very rigid interpretation of the criteria for
> encoding new symbols. Is "appearing in an industry character set
> extension" an official phrasing that you keep referring to?

It was either from the WG2 Principles and Procedures document, or some
other bit of Unicode/10646 folklore that I've read over the past 22
years of keeping up with Unicode/10646. I should look up the exact
wording.

Of course, Unicode can encode anything they please. That's not in
question. But in order to claim "compatibility" as the basis for
encoding something, these specific, "rigid" definitions and criteria
have historically been required. "Compatibility" with any random JPEG or
meme that makes the rounds on the Internet was not enough.

> Robot Face is available on Gmail (GChat), Facebook, and Twitch among
> others (calculating the size of user community is left as an
> assignment for the reader). That's enough usage for consideration by
> the UTC even if the symbol is not present in a character encoding
> standard. Also, since Unicode is an industry standard maintained by
> industry members (among others), then if there is enough request to
> these corporations from communities of users, then there might be some
> reason for considering those symbols. I think that's the case for the
> newer symbols.

Great. Go ahead and encode them, UTC. But don't say it's because your
hands are tied and you have no choice.

> IMO, Unicode officers seems to have low patience for such sentiments.
> You might want to reconsider your tone. There is a time and place for
> sarcasm.

I'll take my chances. I've been called out before for discouraging list
members from requesting things that were out of scope according to the
old rules. All I'm saying now is, if the old rules no longer apply, say
so.

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