Asmus Freytag wrote as follows.
Just because a select group of people engages in communication about
the arcane details of a proposed specification it doesn't mean that
the outcome will benefit some entirely different and larger group
communicate better.
This is logically true. However the s
On 2019-11-13 3:00 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
The current effort starts from an unrelated problem (Unicode not wanting to
administer emoji applications) and in my analysis, seriously puts the cart
before the horse.
But it does solve the unrelated problem.
There's nothing stopping ve
On 11/12/2019 12:32 PM,
wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote:
>
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
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
On 11/12/2019 8:41 AM,
wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote:
Asmus
Freytag wrote as follows.
While I have a certain understanding for
the underlying concerns, it still is the case that this proposal
promises to be a bad exam
Asmus Freytag wrote as follows.
While I have a certain understanding for the underlying concerns, it
still is the case that this proposal promises to be a bad example of
"leading standardization": throwing out a spec in the hopes it may be
taken up and take off, instead of something that meets
WJGO >>Yet if QID emoji are implemented by Unicode Inc. without also
being implemented by ISO/IEC 10646 then that could lead to future
problems, ...
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
Neither Unicode Inc. or ISO/IEC 10646 would _implement_ QID emoji.
That is correct. I should have made clea
On 11/9/2019 3:18 PM, Peter Constable
via Unicode wrote:
Neither Unicode Inc. or ISO/IEC 10646 would _implement_ QID emoji. Unicode would provide a specification for QID emoji that software vendors could implement, while ISO/IEC 10646 would not define that specifica
Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:19 PM
To: wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: New Public Review on QID emoji
On 10/30/2019 10:41 AM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote:
>
> At present I have a question to which I cannot find the answer.
>
> Is the QID
On 10/30/2019 10:41 AM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote:
At present I have a question to which I cannot find the answer.
Is the QID emoji format, if approved by the Unicode Technical
Committee going to be sent to the ISO/IEC 10646 committee for
consideration by that committee?
Hello everyone
I have been reading about QID emoji and what is proposed.
At present I have a question to which I cannot find the answer.
Is the QID emoji format, if approved by the Unicode Technical Committee
going to be sent to the ISO/IEC 10646 committee for consideration by
that committee?
11 matches
Mail list logo
