jameskasskrv at gmail.com
Fri May 29 04:14:59 CDT 2020
On 2020-05-29 7:40 AM, David Starner wrote:
> I don't see it. Profit driven corporate interests may or may not
> support QID Emoji; if they don't, it's practically dead in the water.
This discounts the probability that third-partiers would step up to the
> If they do, Google is going to make a list of corporately supported
> emoji, just like what started this, and that's going to be the list of
> supported QID emoji. Outside that corporate line, there's going to be
> about zero chance anyone tries to use QID emoji, because at most one
> in a million QID emoji are going to be supported, so even if you do
> want to use an emoji from the Palmer's Chipmunk, what's the right QID
> for that? It seems to have three, one for each scientific name, plus
> maybe using the genus, Tamias, will be better supported, or Marmotini,
> or Sciuridae, but if you're getting that vague, ...
Aren't there far more than three ways to express the concept "Hello"
using valid Unicode strings? If *that* had been deemed an
insurmountable obstacle, we'd still be limited to ASCII-English.
>> Naysayers will point out obstacles in any such approach. In the English
>> language, anyone who considers any and all obstacles insurmountable is
>> referred to as a quitter.
> People who use the term quitter in such a sense often get a ride from
> a police car or ambulance later that night. It's a bizarre word to use
> when you've decided Unicode should be a quitter and stop even trying
> to manage emoji.
I've decided that Unicode has no business limiting an evolving set of
More information about the Unicode