I would even add the Emojis are in fact a new separate language, written
with its own script, its own grammar/syntax, and its specific layout and
combinations (ligatured clusters, partly documented in Unicode) and
sometimes specificities about colors of rendering (e.g. the human skin
colors, or nat
Christoph Päper wrote,
>> Or, people could just say what they mean, using language.
>
> That’s not how language (or communication in general) works. At all.
Language works best when people say what they mean and mean what they
say, just as democracy works best with an informed electorate. The
ab
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> There's no evident and universal way to convert
> emojis to natural language ...
Indeed. Emoji characters apparently mean whatever their users want them to
mean. Such meanings may be perceived differently by various users or
communities, as the subject line indicates, an
Doug Ewell :
>
> Or, people could just say what they mean, using language.
That’s not how language (or communication in general) works. At all.
such system already exists since long in various forums and chats, you
already write a word between colons, you get the emoji without having to
select it in a list or remember their code point and use complex input, but
there's a way to reverse this conversion if needed. The conversion of
":colon-b
Doug Ewell responded to Peter Constable,
>> then an automated system could translate one user’s message to
>> display an emoji to a second user that more closely reflects
>> the emotion intended by the first user.
>
> Or, people could just say what they mean, using language.
How about some kind o
Fonts when they are not copyrightable are still patentable. The complexity
of IP rights is growing and their scope of application as well (sometimes
with backward effects in time, including on the "public domain"). I would
not bet anything on a past decision by a US court, and anyway we're not
buil
Peter Constable wrote:
> E.g., how does U+1F624 “😤” compare with U+1F62C “😬”? A given user may
> perceive the two differently, and for either one a given user’s
> perception may differ when evaluating the depiction used in one app/
> platform versus another. They suggest that, if users gave a
> ch
Somewhat interesting: a paper from a conference in Italy a couple of months ago:
http://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/portal/en/research/oh-thats-what-you-meant(20b8923c-28da-49ed-bc78-fcc741db3187).html
I anticipated old news about misunderstanding based on presentation differences
on the level of wat
9 matches
Mail list logo
