<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The scope of what was considered _<i>encodable character</i>_ was enlarged when emoji were added since emoji are not simply text symbols but are full-blown graphic elements. But this was done _<i>very reluctantly</i>_
mainly out of a sense of necessity due to the need to operate with what mobile characters had already implemented. At the time, there was a broad consensus that a better architecture was for a higher-level protocol to support inline images.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">You’ve been told multiple times over many years that certain things you’d like encoded are considered out of scope. Nothing has changed to suggest that UTC might want to consider proposals to expand scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Unicode <unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>William_J_G Overington via Unicode<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 10, 2024 6:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> unicode@corp.unicode.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Is the scope of Unicode unchangeable for ever?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Is the scope of Unicode unchangeable for ever?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">As in being guaranteed never to be changed as part of a stability guarantee or something like that?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Or could the scope be changed if the Unicode Technical Committee wanted to allow some items not presently regarded as being in scope to become regarded as being in scope?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Was the scope enlarged when emoji were encoded?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">This question is being asked as a general question. Clearly this has arisen now because I have been informed that some items that I would like encoded into Unicode are out of scope, but I am wondering what is the general answer
on whether the scope of what items can be encoded is locked into what was decided many years ago or could it become widened if the Unicode Technical Committee wanted to do that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">William Overington</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Friday 10 May 2024</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>