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

[Shervin Afshar]

> 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.

Yes, please. I would like to have that policy noted for my future use.

> 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.

It's not about encoding what "they" please. Compatibility was the issue
with the first set of emoji symbols. The rest of symbols are being added
for various other reasons; e.g. diversity, parity, requests, etc. Also,
random JPEG and meme don't apply here and you're mistaken to assume that
GChat and Facebook fit in this category.

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

Quoting an official UTC communication?

> 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.

AFAIK, rules haven't changed. Unicode didn't have a policy regarding emoji
and symbols with similar usage. Now it does. For a longer while now, some
folks tend to use emoji as means to an end other than what is in the scope
of conversation regarding emoji. And that is not acceptable.


↪ Shervin

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20150209/91f749ef/attachment.html>