Frédéric Grosshans:
Le 09/02/2015 13:55, Alfred Zett a écrit :
Additionally, people tend to forget that simply because Unicode is
doing emoji out of compatibility (or other) requirements, it does
not mean that "now anything goes". I refer folks to TR51[1]
(specifically sections 1.3, 8, and Annex C).
[1]: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51
You know, the fact that this consortium ever took emoji into
consideration immediately justifies to include everything everyone
ever wanted. There is no such thing as important data including
emoji. :)
The including of emoji was a considerable debate here, with people
strongly against and strongly for. The trick is that they were already
used as digital characters by Japanese Telcos and their millions of
customers. They were de facto encoded as characters in Japanese text
messages. At the time of encoding, the spread of smartphones made them
appear in other places (emails, web forums, etc.)
The trick is that one doesn't bargain with Telcos and similar criminals.
Gotta drop them hard and the pest will go away from itself after five
years or so.
Jean-Francois Colson:
I need a few tens of characters for a conlang I’m developping. ☺
Except two or three control characters don't make a con language.
Also, if you don't like con languages in Unicode, what's this:
http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F700.pdf
I doubt that “not liking con languages” is a faithful description of
Jean-François ;-)
On a more serious notes, this block is actually a set of “scientific”
(at his time) notations used by Isaac Newton in its time. They were
encoded in Unicode following an academic project to digitize his
manuscripts. So here, you have characters used 3 centuries ago by no
less than Isaac Newton, most of them having a much longer history, and
useful for science historians. See
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2009/09037r2-alchemy.pdf for details.
That's actually interesting. Good to know, thanks.
I think everyone her knows what you are saying, and that the notion of
plain text is a bit fuzzy. But if you cannot argue that your character
has a meaning in plaint text, for some value of “plain text”, then you
can not hope for an encoding in Unicode.
OK, in this case I agree it makes little sense to hope for such characters.
Best regards,
A. Z.
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
