> > I was responding to a point that Frédéric Grosshans made [1] about > these symbols being added for compatibility with Japanese telco usage. > That argument could be used for the original emoji set, but not for new > emoji; those are supposed to follow the regular criteria.
The compatibility argument can also be applied to major vendors who are using emoji other than Japanese vendors; you can find a list of 20-30 of them here[3]. Add to that list, Facebook and Google. If it is commonly in use, it has a precedence to be proposed for addition to Unicode. To have an informing, objective conversation, people should first look at the actual criteria[4] (as well as the criteria for encoding symbols[5]) and see if what they are claiming is actually according to the criteria or not. [3]: http://www.emoji-cheat-sheet.com/ [4]: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors [5]: http://unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html > If you look at the set of new emoji proposed in L2/15-054 [2], you'll > see that quite a few of them are justified by their current popularity > on the Web. ("Selfie are very popular" was kind of striking. I guess at > least one of my predictions was right.) > [2] http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15054r-emoji-tranche5.pdf > First of all, these are just proposed and not accepted. Secondly, requests by online communities (either directly to UTC or through corp members) creates a precedence for UTC to consider the symbol for encoding. > > For a longer while now, some folks tend to use emoji as means to an > > end other than what is in the scope of conversation regarding emoji. > > And that is not acceptable. > Sorry, I don't understand this. No worries. I don't blame you. It's just the good ol' circular logic. ↪ Shervin On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Shervin Afshar <shervinafs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Of course not. But that's been a stated condition for labeling something > > as "compatibility." > > It *is* compatibility; go back and read my email where I mentioned exactly > where it was used. > > > ↪ Shervin > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > >> Mark Davis [image: ☕]️ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote: >> >> >> In what character encoding standard, or extension, does ROBOT FACE >> >> appear? >> > >> > Unicode has never been limited to what is in other character encoding >> > standard or extensions, "official" or de facto. >> >> Of course not. But that's been a stated condition for labeling something >> as "compatibility." >> >> -- >> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode