moratorium on repeated discussion of rejected topics

[Philippe Verdy]

I agree, but this thread just restarted because the very active encoding of
emojis creates such opporutnity to encode some ideas/words with symbols
(though these symbols are just symbols and have no grammar and do not
attempt to represent full text, they are just pictural substitutes for what
they represent directly).

Emojis are sort of reintroducting of ideograms (but not simplifying them
with counted strokes or reducing them to be dran with a brish and single
ink or reducing them to single syllables as in Chinese: emojis are true
ideograms, just like prehistoric inscriptions, and contain a lot of
pictural art and offer a wide-open creativity, much more than conventional
glyphs for letters or syllables).

The other iddiference is that emojis are actively supported by vendors and
by many users in the world, profiting the fact that some instant messaging
protocols allowed inserting small bitmap icons. Vendors wanted then to
support these also on larger ranges of devices using different resolutions
(or absence of colors, something rare now). For some applications like SMS
and Twitter, using icons was too costly they wanted a more compact
representation (that did not require shifting to costly MMS or posting URLs
hosted on random hosts, with security and privacy problems).

It's natural that emojis came first from Asia (hence their name), where the
creation of sinograms is still very active, but with glyphs that are
difficult to interpret by most readers. They wanted more attractive
ideograms that everybody could read, notably on the social medias where
they are targetting the mass that don't wnat to learn a new language.

2015-06-24 17:57 GMT+02:00 Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>:

>  Dear Sarasvati:
>
>
>
> There is a new thread on the topic of using characters to give abstract
> representation of semantic propositions that can be rendered as sentences
> in various languages — so called “localizable sentences”. This idea has
> been brought up repeatedly over several years now and has gained no
> traction as having potential for a Unicode encoding proposal. To having
> this topic continually re-opened is tiresome; it’s a form of spam on this
> list, degrading the experience for all who come to the list to discuss
> reasonable proposals or to get help with real usage scenarios. I wonder if
> you might want to consider putting a moratorium on further discussion of
> this topic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20150624/a7e2df6d/attachment.html>