New Public Review on QID emoji via Unicode unicode at
Tue Nov 12 14:32:59 CST 2019

Asmus Freytag wrote as follows.

> If leading standardization was such a good thing in communication, why 
> don't we see more "dictionaries of words not yet in use"? After all, 
> it would be a huge benefit for people coining new terms to have their 
> definitions already worked out. Nothing inherent in the technology of 
> dictionaries has directly prevented overtures in that direction, but 
> it overwhelmingly remains a path not taken.

> One wonders why.

The comparison is not of like with like.

In 1974 I invented a new concept in broadcasting. I coined the word 
telesoftware to denote my invention. I was able to use the word 
immediately, because the format for introducing a new word into English 
was already established. In 1976 I sent a letter to the editor of a 
trade magazine using the word. A gentleman who read the letter replied 
and that reply was published in a later issue of the magazine. 
Eventually, some years later, the word was added into the Oxford English 
Dictionary. At first into a volume of the supplement to the first 
edition and then, when it was published, in the second edition of the 
Oxford English Dictionary.

If someone wants to coin a new word something to do with character 
encoding then he or she can do so and just start using it, perhaps in a 
thread in this mailing list nd maybe other people will start using the 
new word too. Yet if a new emoji or some other symbol is desired to be 
introduced then the symbol cannot just be included in plain text. QID 
emoji can provide the capability to get something encoded promptly and 
used in plain text. I appreciate that there is then a font provision 
issue, yet with the way to encode the emoji or symbol available an 
attempt can be made to provide font support. Such font support 
possibility may well depend upon the platform.

I remember that when emoji were introduced into Unicode Doug Ewell 
predicted that the supporting of emoji on platforms would have the 
effect of providing support for other characters encoded in plane 1, 
when such support might have been much slower if emoji had not been 
encoded. Doug was right. Also colour font technology was developed and 
implemented and can today be used with any character, not just emoji.

So introducing QID emoji could possibly lead to the introduction of 
advances for other things than emoji as well as for emoji.

  > Just because you can write something that is a very detailed 
specification doesn't mean that it is, or ever should be, a standard.

Yes, but that does not mean that it should necessarily not become a 
standard. For communication to take place one needs to start somewhere. 
The QID emoji proposal is a start. It has been considered at (at least) 
two Unicode Technical Committee meetings and now there is a public 
review taking place.

Everyone has an opportunity to contribute comments and ideas to the 
public review and maybe progress will be made.

William Overington

Tuesday 12 November 2019

More information about the Unicode mailing list