Emoji end goal

[David Starner]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:48 AM Rebecca T <637275 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. I think a good response to “that’d _double_ the codepoints, so we
> should just add a ligature” is “if it would be such a burden to implement
> that you don’t want to use space in the charts for what are, fundamentally,
> hundreds of *semantically different* ideographs, why are we dumping that
> burden onto vendors?”
>

Because the vendors want it. There's far more people who can and will
implement emoji completely than who support all Han ideographs or many
ancient scripts. If you don't want to support it because it's too big a
burden, then don't. If you don't have that option because your users are
demanding it, then Unicode is successfully providing the options the users
want, and if that feature is too much of a burden for you to support,
perhaps the problem is that you picked a problem you couldn't feasibly
solve.

I'd compare OSes. An operating system is probably about a man-year of work,
until you have all this problem with people wanting fancy font support and
graphical user interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6 support and reading CDs
and audio support and all this ridiculous stuff. (A real OS supports either
punch cards or a keyboard for input, and outputs to a line printer.) Today,
pretty much only a major megacorp can make an OS from scratch, and even
Google used the Linux kernel and Java to simplify making Android. You could
blame Unicode for a small part of that, but Unicode isn't making you
implement Unicode in your OS; your users are making that demand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20161012/f1784192/attachment.html>