<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">10 jan. 2023 kl. 07:07 skrev Asmus Freytag via Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org" class="">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/9/2023 9:09 PM, Doug Ewell via
Unicode wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:SJ0PR03MB659818F5875BFF41A70091E6CAFF9@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-size: large; color: #3333FF;" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">3. Emoji vs text presentation.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
to me that's more clearly pseudo-encoding than some of the other
things now possible with emoji. It's because the wrong presentation
is nearly always really wrong, so there's no common fallback.<br class="">
<br class="">
And add to that, that the introduction of the wrong default made
existing applications and texts suddenly fail, and you have one of
the worst blunders in Unicode's encoding history.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I currently try to stay out of emoji stuff. Mostly. But I must point out that labelling (the emoji for) poisonous mushrooms, and some mushrooms are deadly poisonous, as ”food” or ”vegetables” is highly inappropriate.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<p class=""><font color="#3333ff" face="monospace" size="4" class=""><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">[…]</span></font><br class="">
Formatting / styling to me is distinguished by something that's
conceptually always applied to a run of text, and usually not on
runs of length one. </p></div></div></blockquote>Technically, yes, but conceptually no. Styling can for the most part be though of as applying to individual characters.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>This is in contrast to such things as bidi, which, even without bidi controls, just based on the bidi categories of individual characters, must be seen as applying to runs of characters, due to the resulting reordering. (Sorry for the long sentence.)<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">The main exception to that was mathematical
notation, and we opted to make a principled exception, precisely
because semantic mapping to highly specific shapes for an
individual symbol is or should not be the task of "styling”.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>1. That styling(!) is lost when doing normalizing to NFKD or NFKC.</div><div>2. MathML still considers it a styling. LaTeX has always considered it a styling.</div><div>3. It is not general enough. (See my proposal on math expression representation.)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>/Kent K<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
<br class="">
Flag sequences and the like are true examples of pseudo coding.
Introducing a scheme that maps arbitrary code point sequences to a
symbol in a way that depends on definitions maintained outside the
Unicode Standard. It's the clearest case of injecting another
character set (or a lego system to representing one) into the
Standard that I've seen.<br class="">
<br class="">
We could have done the same with three-letter codes for currency
symbols, but we didn't, and that marks the difference.</p><p class="">A./<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>